Zen Centers, Sexual Liaisons and Delusion: One Stop Shopping?

I have been advocating that Zen sanghas study the dynamics, harm caused and their complicity in allowing teachers to have sexual access to students. Some teachers are outright gropers and grabbers, some have quiet love affairs and some may brag in their books about their sexual prowess with students or women they claim they met in a Dharma context (but who are no longer or never were their students). Many have agreed that serial sexual harassment by a Zen teacher is harmful, but is it really unethical or illegal to date/have sex with students? These questions have been highlighted by the comments of Brad Warner, a Zen teacher trained in Japan. Read on and see what YOU think.

Brad Warner: I really cannot believe what I am reading here. You are entirely mistaken in the assertion that all romantic involvement between a “member of clergy” and a “congregant” is unethical. Or illegal. I cannot overstress how completely wrong you are in this matter.

On what basis do you stress that “it is wrong to consider sex between clergy and congregant unethical and/or illegal?” From your educated and informed work and studies in the field of Sexual Abuse, or Post-traumatic stress, or studies on Appropriate Boundaries between Clergy and Congregant within the Interfaith context, or is it from your Clinical studies with patients who have experienced boundary violations? Or is it from your academic study of the field of Women and Abuses of Power? I speak to you from my experience in all of those capacities. Have you studied or even read the Clergy Misconduct Laws that are applied in the United Sates? Have you read the website “It is a crime not an affair”http://www.adultsabusedbyclergy.org/statelaws.html In this article, you may learn that sexual relationship between clergy and congregant is illegal in 13 States: These statutes, [have been] enacted by Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas, South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia. Please educate yourself, you are an ordained priest. You are clergy.

Brad Warner: You say, “I do not think that you can predict the effects in advance or the vulnerability of the women who are smitten with a Zen teacher.” You cannot predict the effects in advance or the vulnerability of women who are smitten with ANYONE. Or of men who are smitten with anyone. You cannot predict the effects of falling in love. Ever.

You say, “So the choice of whether you proceed with dating or sleeping with a woman will put someone at risk. Why not just date women outside the sangha? The consequences of dating elsewhere are not a big deal; the consequences of causing lasting harm are great and the negative effects may last a long time.”

What is “at risk”? Who is not “at risk” when it comes to matters of the heart? As to the consequences of dating elsewhere not being a big deal… That’s simply absurd. The consequences of dating anyone anywhere can always be a very big deal. There can be negative effects of falling in love anywhere for anyone at any time. It is a risky thing to do.

Falling in love is a very risky business, harm and broken hearts can occur under the best of circumstances. But when the risk has been pointed out to you, you can choose whether to create more risk or not. You are the teacher, your own needs should not come before the well-being of your students. You will not only cause harm to a student but also to a sangha. Dating within the sangha causes harm to the sangha through favoritism, jealousy, and suspicion. It makes sense that before you were fully cognizant of this subject you wrote about your amorous relationship (eg with student or non-student Leilani. “Leilani and I fucked way more than Richard Baker ever did, I’m sure.”

You also compare yourself with 14th Century Zen Master Ikkyu Sojun (in your book),the acknowledged spiritual leader of his day. Really? Ikkyu explained openly his sexual predilections were due to early sexual abuse by elder monks in the monastery. What’s your explanation? Now, I am asking you to consider the educated research that has come forward since medieval Japan, and the experience of those who have offered counseling to these survivors, and their well accepted findings in this area. There is a risk to crossing the street, but if you cross the street and knowingly push someone in front of a bus, you are responsible. I am asking you to stop being outraged at what I describe, and to start educating yourself. Your “knowing” about this problem, as an empowered Zen teacher, is a symptom of the very dangerous tendency of teacher inflation we have been describing. You may know something about Zen practice, but you have not been educated in this important field–relationships of unequal power. Please study these matters from a scientific perspective. The upcoming webinar on December 13th is an opportunity to learn from others who have studied and are teaching from experience not just opinion.

Brad Warner: Indeed we do have to try to discern between kuso and miso. What you’re talking about here is pure kuso.

I’m sure that your position will win out in the end. And that’s a very sad and hurtful thing. You’re causing a world of harm here.

Really? Through education and discussion, I am causing harm? This sounds like the rhetoric of book burners and science deniers that we have heard in the current political divide. How about you study some science on this subject? How about you cause less harm through your self-serving alleged seductions and stop promoting your right to have sex with any woman who attends your teaching?

About Myoan Grace Schireson

Myōan Grace Schireson is head teacher and Abbess of the Central Valley Zen Foundation She received dharma transmission in the Suzuki Roshi lineage by Sojun Mel Weitsman, Abbot of Berkeley Zen Center. Grace has also studied Rinzai Zen in Japan with Keido Fukushima Roshi, the late Abbot of Tofukuji Monastery in Kyoto, Japan who asked her to teach the koans she had studied with him during her training there. Grace is the head teacher of the Central Valley Zen Foundation and has founded and leads three Zen groups and a Zen retreat center in California. Grace is also a clinical psychologist who has specialized in women and families. She has been married for forty-eight years to her husband, Kuzan Peter Schireson, and has two grown sons and four grandchildren.

215 comments

When a person has a position of perceived power, then any contact with students outside of being a teacher or is an abuse of that power. It is considered unethical to have contact with a student, probably at any time in the future – even if it has been years since the teacher/student relationship. The teacher may not see themselves as having a position of power, but the student always will. Therefore, they are susceptible to being having advantage taken of them.

I am female clergy with a background in psychotherapy. I won’t even hug somebody, unless they say that they need a hug, and only then when in the company of other people. Bowing is sufficient most of the time.

Thank you, you and I are aligned on the inherent harm caused by a sexual relationship within the context of unequal power. In California, there is a two year cooling off period for this kind of liaison where therapy has been terminated. Two years need to pass before the patient is no longer a patient. Hopefully, the patient or student will have gotten over that infatuation with the therapist. I was told by one male patient that if he has sex with me, this would prove he was well, or it would make him well. I am sure there is a similar delusion in the Zen world. I have a better chance for enlightenment through this sexual exchange, or I can get enlightenment through this intimate exchange.

I’m still a (female) student. And I have, I must admit, been smitten in the past with teachers – and if they had taken advantage of that, I would be feeling the results to this day.

How do I know this?

The comparison that comes to mind for me is when I dated a (significantly) older man. I initiated the relationship, but as it neared its end I realized that over its course I’d given more than I’d expected, wanted, or perhaps totally known. And in this case while totally legal, okay and aboveboard, the experience still left me with residual feelings of betrayal, & disgust with myself.

Thank you anon,
Until we ourselves as wome learn how sexuality, equality and intimacy are necessary, it is hard for us to share these feelings with men or to know how to protect ourselves from the feeling that someone has taken advantage of us. We are taught to make ourselves desirable, and we are then subject to fantasies and ideas that do not always support our safety, autonomy and individuation. As you have learned what matters to you in a relationship, all of us need to work towards making the right choice and not becoming someone else’s object.

Thank you very much for your clear seeing and wise speech. I’ve always like the Teachers Code of Conduct from Against the Stream Buddhist Meditation Society:

4) We undertake the precept of refraining from sexual misconduct.
We agree to avoid creating harm through sexuality and to avoid sexual exploitation or relationships of a sexual manner that are outside of the bounds of the relationship commitments we have made to another or that involve another who has made vows to another. Teachers with vows of celibacy will live according to their vows. Teachers in committed relationships will honor their vows and refrain from adultery. All teachers agree not to use their teaching role to exploit their authority and position in order to assume a sexual relationship with a student.

We acknowledge that a healthy relationship with a former student can be possible, but that great care and sensitivity are needed. We agree that in this case the following guidelines are crucial.

a) A sexual relationship is never appropriate between teachers and students.

b) During retreats or formal teaching, any intimation of future student-teacher romantic or sexual relationship is inappropriate.

c) If interest in a genuine and committed relationship develops over time between a single teacher and a student, the student-teacher relationship must clearly and consciously have ended before any further development toward a romantic relationship. Such a relationship must be approached with restraint and sensitivity – in no case should it occur immediately after retreat. A minimum time period of three months or longer from the last formal teaching between them, and a clear understanding from both parties that the student-teacher relationship has ended must be coupled with a conscious commitment to enter into a relationship that brings no harm to either party.

Most excellent also anon,
Some centers require a senior teacher to be involved in these unusual cases. I guess that insures that this is not a repetitive pattern of revolving students with a single teacher.
Thanks for this code. I hope others can make use of it.

Reading through the replies, I found this code of ethics useful. Except for the bit about a “minimum of three months…” which sounds to me like a mobile phone contract or something 🙂 The truth is, relationships between people don’t happen like that… you don’t think “Oh, I like her” and she thinks “Oh, I like him…” then you sit down and talk, and say… “Well, we’ll do nothing about it for 3 months, stop the teacher-student relationship, then see if in 3 months of abstinence we still want to try going out…” It sounds like a noble sentiment on paper, but not likely to work for lots of people! I think it’s best to have codes of conduct that are likely to reflect reality – rather than lead to people covering things up for fear of breaking the rules! But otherwise, very good 🙂

(perhaps, as an amendment, I would suggest that what really happens is that people tend to suddenly find themselves in the early stage of a relationship without ever having planned it… at which point it would be wise to clearly suspend any formal Teacher-Student relationship immediately and indefinitely.

I would perhaps suggest that much later in a settled relationship, it’s not impossible for a Teacher-Student relationship to be re-established also. We have to remember in all this that our receptivity to one another as guides and supports in the spiritual life at some point is not a ‘legal matter’, but is an organic reflection of where we’re at, what questions we need help with etc. There’s no reason I can think of why you would not necessarily find that your long-term life partner wasn’t someone who could help in that way, if they genuinely had the experience you needed to draw upon… but for clarity of purpose in a group setting I can see the strong argument for a long suspension of any formal arrangements in the early period of a relationship)

It is six months at many places. If you want to practice, you put your dating needs behind the needs for ethical behavior. I have seen the rule observed, and I have seen the rule broken. There are lots of places to meet singles, and not so many places to practice Zen.

Yes, I’m not in disagreement with you in principal. What I’m pointing towards is that in cases where it’s cool and calm enough to say “ok, let’s put this on hold for 3-6 months and then see if we still want to start something”, then the code of conduct was less necessary in the first place, you would quite likely have worked something out that was not too harmful. Codes of Conduct are really valuable for the more tricky situations, the greyer areas (I’m English I’ll use an “e” whatever this form’s spellchecker is saying to me!) etc. So I think rather than just having the ‘ideal’ built into them, it needs also to have a response to what’s likely to really happen… otherwise what will (and has of course) happen is that people will simply conceal their relationships for 3 – 6 months, and then once the deception has started, maybe longer. So having some guidance for people when they’re in that tricky situation I think is worthwhile – ok, they’re unlikely to stop the relationship, so encourage them to be open about it and end the Student-Teacher relationship. It’s not that I’m disagreeing with you, it’s that I’m trying to reflect on how harm can be minimised…

… the thing that shocked me most when I learned about all these stories, is not simply the relationships themselves, whether they are abusive or not, but the layers upon layers of deception, lying, covering up, within sanghas, within marriages, within friendships, and not only on the fringes of communities but right at the heart, with the “leaders”. This is what’s really undermined any trust I have in the whole notion of formal Teachers and Transmission. I’d like to see Codes of Conduct developed that make deception and lying less likely – “ok, things have got complicated, but how can we deal with them in a way that’s open and straightforward”.

By the way, you might be interested to know that my decision to turn down my Circle Dharma Holder ceremony in the Zen Peacemakers was made after trying to have a discussion about whether it might be a good idea to have some kind of basic Code of Ethics for the Zen Peacemakers Circles in Europe (I was to become one of only 4 officially appointed representatives of the whole approach here, having already organised Circles in this sangha for many years) – but I found any move towards this completely unwelcome, a closed door, to my very great surprise. This – together with reflecting on the language and spirit of patriarchy in the keshimyaku documents – really challenged me to question everything! I couldn’t help comparing a recent blog by Genpo Roshi, where he had talked about always thinking of himself and others thinking of him as the great “Patriarch of the Dharma”, with the terminology and spirit of the transmission ceremonies themselves.

There will be no ”Transmissions” and no ”Teachers” in the small circles I’ve set up here, we really are all just spiritual friends, with varying degrees of experience and inspiration for each other…. although I’m sure there will be ethical problems in the future!! But as the groups operate at the moment, it would not be harmful or feel strange if anyone in the groups wanted to start a relationship with anyone else, including those in the role of circle host (for want of a better word, we don’t use one), since the host is clearly only facilitating, (and the role is shared around very often). In fact, it could even be a positive thing… maybe I look forward to the first marriage between people who come along to the circle, and the first children!

Take care and be well,

Chris

ps I’ve never myself had a relationship with someone coming to a group, although I have had a long-term partner get involved with activities when we were running the Zen Peacemaker Circle here, and there was no difficulty with that either. But there too I was simply a co-ordinator, not a “teacher”, so maybe the dynamics are different… I don’t know!

Hear, hear and well said zafrogzen. Brad can describe a rabbit with horns, but it doesn’t mean it actually exists. And he can give a lot of reasons why indulging your desire is part of Zen, but it doesn’t come across as true.

I don’t know where to begin here. I’m not a big fan of Brad Warner’s online or literary persona, so I feel weird defending him. Nonetheless, your aggressive and cherished opinions on these matters suffer many of the flaws that have temporarily (and possibly permanently) dissuaded me from formal Zen practice.

Lets begin with the most obvious flaw – the argument that relationships of unequal power are inherently unethical. ALL relationships are expressions of unequal power, in that in certain areas one person in the relationship almost always displays strengths and masteries not displayed by his or her partner. Power is often attractive, be it financial, somatic, social, or even spiritual. Does a spiritual teacher possess spiritual power? Usually. However he or she may not possess sexual power. Hence, why do we assume as we often do that it is the man with spiritual status power who has the upper hand? If he has little sexual attraction power or that power is attendant to his spiritual power and he is therefore seriously inexperienced with it, he is at a disadvantage and may even be seen to have been exploited. Unless we are saying that women are always in a power disadvantage compared to men, and one would have to be woefully ignorant to even make such a claim, we must admit that it isn’t always clear just who is the victim. Or is the argument that the spiritual teacher, by virtue of his or her status, must always be assumed to be the superior in all aspects of his or her life? This is simply an absurd expectation, and it really falls down in light of any experience with actual teachers. The perfection of one’s ego and its projections is not a primary qualification for teaching. It is not what Zen is ‘about’. Zen is not self help; Buddhism is not therapy.

My second sticking point with your approach is your display of just how quickly you resort to expertise as refuge, listing off your many qualifications in many fields of study as a bulwark to support your cherished opinions. Besides the fact that ‘expertise’ is not one of the three refuges, such behavior in and of itself is the behavior of a challenged ego-persona with a need to be secure in its ‘rightness’. There may be a way to awaken Brad to his own blindspots, but lobbing bombs from behind a wall of ‘unquestionable’ (nothing is truly unquestionable) qualifications is surely not the way to do it. In so doing you illustrate your own frighteningly blind egoic attachment and you fail to meet him, or anyone else, in the unguarded place where all meaningful communication takes place.

Brad’s behavior may be unskillful and painfully adolescent, but YOURS is the more dangerous poison that is killing meaningful Zen practice. It is sanctimonious, ego-driven self-righteousness dressed up as ethics, even as it is terrified of its own nakedness.

And I say that as someone without a dog in this fight. I’m simply saddened by the lack of clear vision you express seemingly without any awareness of just how grounded in delusion your entire argument is.

If I might make an observation? Sorry, not really my place but I do feel compelled. You ended with:

“I’m simply saddened by the lack of clear vision you express seemingly without any awareness of just how grounded in delusion your entire argument is.”

It’s my observation that Grace reasons her arguments on research and scientific data. The literature on this stuff is really not at all ambiguous. There’s nothing wrong with educating someone and, yeah, it can be embarrassing when one does. That’s how we learn. I’m biased but, in my opinion, Grace Schireson rocks man.

Is victimology now a scientific field? Just the comparison between psychologists and spiritual teachers is wrong-headed.

She wasn’t teaching – teaching explicates principles, it doesn’t rest on mere authority. She basically said “you’ve not studied what I’ve studied therefore my opinion is superior.” Well, maybe, but just as likely not.

Not a word of what she said had even an iota to do with waking up. As much as Brad’s behavior can be illustrative of the mind asleep, I see no evidence that she’s any less in love with her own opinions, nor any less inclined to go to war over them.

Very little meaningful or interesting communication happens between parties at war.

The article was to address specific complaints about a point of view that Brad Warner has. Grace Scherison uses specific information to counter what he has said. I don’t think she is making sweeping generalizations that are to be hardened into some sort of law for dealing with these situations. She addressed Warner’s BS directly and is not presuming to make regulations for anyone. It’s good that she has made people uncomfortable – those who think they ‘dwell in the absolute’ and are oblivious to suffering need to be awakened somehow.

There is much scientific and clinical research and many books written by those who have studied the harm caused in these situations. I would like to *politely* encourage readers to educate themselves in this domain. I would like to *politely* invite Brad Warner to do the same. This is not an ambiguous finding. The laws restricting this behavior in 13 states are based on harm created and well understood. Congregants and Zen students idealize a teacher. They think this is love. Or they think this kind of love will save them. A teacher who takes this form of projection personally will be using his craft and teaching to take advantage of others for his own needs.

I can’t tell which anon is speaking? Are you the one who said waging war with words was not helpful? As I have said, we can study Zen without sex between teacher and student. And I have suggested that sangha’s get stronger to help teachers. Might they have helped Trungpa to not kill himself at such a young age with alcohol?

And what makes this about Mommy? I doubt my students find me safe at all.

In the world of Reason, you are all Kings and Queens. In the realm beyond reason, your goal, I believe, none of it makes any sense at all. Please excuse, my cat now wants his nightly grooming seshin. Happy New Year to All, although I don’t think I see any one there.

Wasn’t Trungpa the first to come to the West and the first to leave monastic life? And didn’t he do it all during the 60s when all boundaries were in question? Would he behave the same if he showed up today? Would his contribution be even greater if he had been able to keep sane boundaries?

What we have here is a Zen prick (sorry I cannot call him a priest or teacher) that confuses his dick with a teaching stick.

It is quite obvious to me that this Brad guy should not be a teacher, I simply cannot understand why he is a teacher in the first place. He seems to be more of the kind of a psychotic sexual predator who is desperately in need of help. In no way could I accept this completely immature boy as a teacher. One of the things that practice thought me is not to run away from what is, if I have done some harm to someone, I recognize it as such, feel the guilt and pain, pay the price, and sometime this price is very high, it can hurt awfully, I accept to suffer willingly the pain of my own humiliating behavior. When we stop denying we start paying our debt and it hurts.

This is absurd; this Zen prick simply tries to justify his misconduct and deviant behavior, being in total denying.

Brad Warner is a sexual predator? You are out of your mind. THIS is exactly what he meant about the damage being done by Grace and the rest of the gang piling on about this. We’ve come to calling Brad Warner a sexual predator.

I’ve not seen a single person refer to Brad Warner as a sexual predator. Why can’t we just take on what’s been said rather than escalating the rhetoric? In truth, and I mention it hoping you might see what you just did here, but you are the one who suggested it and brought it up, in the form of a question. I’ve seen nobody referring to him as such. In my opinion, this is a red herring.

Grace’s response to alain was “Yes, something is definitely amiss with advocating this kind of self-indulgence as a Zen teacher.” Brad Warner was clearly the subject of alain’s comment, and “this kind of self-indulgence” has to refer to the conduct he was writing about: “misconduct and deviant behavior”. I can’t read this as anything but accusing him of advocating predation. Objecting that she never used those exact words would be like saying “I merely said ‘something is amiss with shooting a man in Reno just to watch him die’, but I never called him a *murderer*!”

And I’d say you owe “there are a few of us” an apology for insinuating that they hallucinated alain’s comment. (I’m assuming you’ve already apologized to Brad for same.)

I have had to deal with substance abusers in my life, and Sasaki’s behavior sounds very similar to what I’ve witnessed in these individuals. In light of the first-and-second-hand accounts which keep surfacing about Roshi Sasaki, I can’t help but think that all his sexual misbehavior sounds like it could be quite compulsive. Of course, tragically, in this case, the most direct negative consequences of Sasaki’s (possible) compulsion involve the emotional well-being of the women victimized.

But suppose his problem was not inappropriate sexual advances; suppose it was alcoholism. All the negative results which the Sangha has experienced would be very similar: the hiding of the problem by the teacher, the cover-up or denial by close associates, as well as the incongruous potential for truly positive achievements, despite the substance problem.

The idea that Roshi Sasaki has a sickness involving this particular aspect of his life has yet to be raised in this dialogue, yet to my mind it is the one that most seems to fit all the conflicting descriptions of apparently who this person is, and the negative behaviors being exhibited. Grace brought up the example of the Zen master Ikkyu her article as someone who acknowledged being sexually and emotionally victimized during his time in the harsh conditions at the Japanese monasteries as a possible explanation of his own documented sexual excesses. Didn’t Sasaki also enter strict training at the age of 14? Isn’t it then worth considering that he, like Ikkyu, was also was emotionally damaged in some way?

It may be that Adam accuses me of being another one of those who deflecting attention from the victims in this dialogue but I don’t believe that I am. I strongly believe that the well-being of the victims in this matter should be the main focus of anything we accomplish here. What I’m suggesting is that it is possible that Sasaki himself may be one of these victims, albeit by way of his own, uncontrollable illness. If this is at least a possibility, it seems to me that some of the murder-in-the-first-degree, prosecutorial tenor, and (most especially) the direct insults being hurled back and forth by people taking part in this dialogue, needs to be strongly adjusted to reflect the very real possibility that Sasaki himself may be in need of our compassionate assistance.

I like to think I can be a thoughtful person. I actually think your perspective here is more rational than most I’ve seen seeking to understand Joshu Sasaki’s behaviors (for whatever my perspective is worth). That said, I don’t think we can know definitely the cause of anyone’s compulsions, short of them telling us a raw account of their life story. We just don’t have the information to go on, outside of biographical outlines which might or might not explain any of this. Fair enough?

Yes. I agree. However, if we cannot be sure of this person’s background, then (given the circumstances) we are still obligated to address this person as if illness is still a possibility. If he’s ill, this warrants a level of patience, consideration, and compassion, which we are not obligated to offer the wontedly depraved.

Dear Indra, good moniker. The discussion is not about Sasaki’s illness, but about what a community can do to help a teacher whose actions are harming others. I have not mentioned Sasaki, and certainly do not consider him or anyone else “wantonly depraved.” Can we set standards as communities, standards based on the clinical findings in these matters? If we can agree on standards, then we can ask our teachers to follow them. If there is blind obedience to a teacher, we cannot help make the community safe. If we cannot agree on standards for Zen teachers, then, anything goes. I do not support the position that a Zen teacher can fall in love with a student, and do that repeatedly “as dating.” This is irresponsible behavior, and to insist on this behavior as OK, and to condemn the discussion of such behavior as harmful, reinforces ignorance.

Thanks! Just doing my small part to keep the hair out of our eyes…and the food.

Yes, hopefully some form of standard rules of conduct can be agreed upon. I am not in any position to argue against the data you are basing your positions on. However, I think that part of the complexity in getting clinically proven conclusions to inform the Zen teacher/student interaction is that we need to consider that the process of learning Zen might very well be unique relative to other somewhat-similar one-on-one relationships. I’d like to suggest that Zen training actually does require that one develop some level of “blind trust” regarding what one’s teacher tells you, or asks you to do, or directs you to go with your body and mind. Again, I am NOT saying that negative behavior shouldn’t somehow be banned: it most definitely should! But how? How to take what is ideally, a vital, spontaneous, and yes, even sometimes dangerous form of educational encounter and not turn it into something which has been “sanitized for human consumption”… quite literally “neutered”.

This seems to me that the above might express a bit more clearly the sentiment behind some the resistance (read: Brad Warner) to the practical recommendations you are presenting.

Here’s a question that’s meant in all sincerity; Does the data you have studied indicate that there is absolutely nothing positive that can be gained by working on ones sexual issues with an accomplished Zen teacher?

I know you addressed Grace, so I hope you don’t mind if I pipe in on a couple of points. When you write

“I’d like to suggest that Zen training actually does require that one develop some level of “blind trust” regarding what one’s teacher tells you, or asks you to do, or directs you to go with your body and mind.”

I respectfully disagree. A certain trust must be part of the intimate relationship that develops between student and teacher, but it cannot be ‘blind’. That intimacy is a lifeline that is developed through seeing, and it travels in both directions: the teacher must truly see the student, and the student must truly see the teacher. This seeing takes the blindfolds off of both persons so that the trust itself is not the student trusting the teacher, but the student trusting the self, writ small and large. Maybe I can say “trusting dharma’.

If the student only trusts the teacher, what happens when the teacher is not around or dies? So, teachers must endeavour at all points to support this understanding and promote the nature of this trust as opposed to the blind trust in a teacher. It is not an easy thing to accomplish, but teachers must do their best.

I know that from the outside it may look like a teacher is saying, “by trusting me you learn to trust yourself’, but that makes the teacher too important, in my view, and teachers must be more skillful than to promote a view like that. Teachers are only teachers if they are there as an extension of the student’s aspiration for wholeness, for clarity and understanding. For living their bodhisattva vows. They should never reify themselves much less encourage or allow students to do so. Not easy, since teachers are human and subject to all the same confusions students are, but necessary.

So, as I see it, the student is not there to satisfy a teacher’s aspiration for anything! I don’t know how to name this exactly, but in the face to face, heart to heart, mind to mind, relationship between student and teacher, transmission of dharma is not the resolution of transference in the usual psychological way. Ay, if only I was smarter or knew how to say this difficult point. Sorry. If they agree, maybe Grace or someone can help with this since I am not a psychologist.

Okay, finally, when you write to Grace

“Does the data you have studied indicate that there is absolutely nothing positive that can be gained by working on ones sexual issues with an accomplished Zen teacher?”

my answer is simple: I have worked with students on sexual issues, but it never included touching. Ever. If the intimacy is true between student and teacher, the student can work on sexual issues, like all issues, within a dharma context that does not require sexual contact. Zen is not sex therapy (about which I know nothing, by the way) though zen practice can certainly help one to become more clear on sexual and all other human issues so that understanding is authentic and good decisions are made.

Thanks for letting me pipe in. I don’t need a hair net because, like, no hair. But we all need ‘mind nets’, don’t you think?

Although I agree with the basic premise of a lot of what you write here, I do object to the tone and appeals to authority. Certainly you have studied the issues in-depth and have a degree of expertise that should be taken into account. But you still need to back up your assertions with real evidence. The evidence that relations with members of clergy is illegal in some states is really the only fact you use to make your basic point, and I don’t think it was enough to warrant many of the other generalizations you made in the blog post.

I have written extensively about gurus and predators in this arena on my old blog. I definitely don’t have a lot of sympathy for guys like Genpo Roshi or his ilk.

At the same time, the rhetoric from people like yourself can also be quite polarizing. As someone involved in zen, you might want to consider how taking certain “dug in” positions is not favorable to promoting common ground. If you simply dismiss Brad’s view, or others like him, you effectively alienate the people you most need to be talking to and communicating with.

The way that these things will change, over time, is by people understanding one another’s positions better. Certainly, sometimes we feel that a position is just factually incorrect. That may very well be true. But there is enough gray area in many of these cases to challenge any black and white thinking or explanations.

And regardless of objective truth, we still need to deal with people’s dug-in positions and the tendency everyone has to want to draw lines in the sand and create divides that make things simpler to comprehend both intellectually and emotionally. But distancing yourself from Brad and denouncing him in such a fashion is actually a part of the larger issue that these sorts of problems point to.

When a victim of sexual abuse speaks out, many times the “powers that be” will denounce her (or him) and create stories about the lack of truth around the things the victim is saying. By creating clear “right and wrong”, “you are with us or you are against us” story lines, the abusers perpetuate the abuse further.

Yet, the “whistle blower types” (of which I consider myself one) also do similar damage when we step into the fray with anger and divisive rhetoric. There is so much pain involved in these issues, and if we start to make strong accusations and speak from a place of self-righteousness, the other parties begin to shut down.

Of course it is frustrating when people speak from places of ignorance, which is obviously how you see what Brad has said in this situation (and I would mostly agree). However, you did not help matters with this blog post, in my opinion. You have, in effect, simply preached to the choir. You will not convert any doubters with this post, but simply encourage people to become even more entrenched in their differences, forcing Brad and others to feel they need to defend themselves and attack you in response.

We need to look deeper at ourselves and make sure that we do not continue to repeat the same old patterns if we truly wish to break the cycles of abuse around us–and not just in zen communities, but all of the places they occur in life.

The important thing in this dialogue, in my opinion, is that both Brad and myself are open to feedback. If teachers make mistakes, or if their tone or message is unhelpful, they should hear about it. They should make an effort to correct and change. The community should call the teacher on the carpet, and say I do not appreciate this behavior. The teacher should hear this feedback and take it to heart. I do.

If the community cannot speak to a teacher questioning his/her behavior or tone, or correct a teacher, something is VERY wrong.

No one should stop practicing, and my article is about how sanghas need to change to give decent feedback and help keep things healthy. I appreciate that we can do that here. We can keep trying to say it with more skill and respect, and we can vow to keep listening. Your criticism matters and that is exactly the point of the original post on Sexual harassment at Zen Centers and other abuses. Sasaki’s community and the many who practiced there would have been well served if they could have corrected their teacher.

The thing is, it may be that people like you and a few others are the only ones who are ready to take on such difficult challenges, while many more people require quite a bit more time to establish this view.

We must endeavor not to lose hope, and to see that our efforts at walking this path will not always meet with open arms and understanding. Our path is to keep ourselves open even when others do not.

We are sessentially talking to the “Undecideds” who haven’t seen the harm and may imagine that true love will be compromised or??? I asked the question “What do YOU” think? We are learning a lot about just that.

I’ve posted a few replies to different sections of these discussions today, because I’ve taken a month to think carefully about them. And Grace, you’ve lost this “undecided” person. You’ve so skillfully and authoritarianly sewn together several different ethical questions, tarring them all with the same newspaper headline word “abuse”.

First, there’s the “real” abuse, the gropings and coersions etc, which most of people would agree about. Then there’s the secretive affairs etc, which again most of us don’t like… then you sew that together with’ all relationships between a Zen teacher and their student are wrong’… then swiftly include ‘all Buddhist/Clergy with their students’……. and then even go onto ‘all students in a whole community with anyone who’s a teacher, even if they are not studying with them’. You dodge and dive… you admit no nuance, no alternative viewpoint. I’ve read all these posts carefully, and never do you show any understanding or reflective consideration of anyone who’s presenting a different opinion.

So, well done Grace! A month ago, I would have described myself as someone who held the same point of view as you, pretty much. Now, after reading all this, I find myself almost in the opposite position…. not only do I disagree about teacher-student relationships in Buddhism (I’d like more teachers and students to get married and teach together!)… but now I even question whether many of the so-called abuses were really abuses. I mean, if an adult man makes a pass at an adult woman in dokusan, she can always say “No!” If she feels unable to say no, then she should consider how she’s given away her power, and walk away. there are enough real abuses – of children by clergy, of violence towards women, to focus our attention on. That’s where our effort needs to be. Whether Japanese Zen teachers slept with too many of their students in the 70s and 80s and 90s is not really a major social issue (except for people who are bothered about these things, like some people are bothered about gay people and want to ban them too!)

So, there you go. Your responses to Brad Warner, and your original article, have turned me away from the position I held, to my great surprise! And since I’m also a teacher of sorts, involved in shaping the growth of community, then you’ve pushed one more sangha away from where you were hoping to be.

I feel quite angry actually, that the point of view I held last year is taken up and used so aggressively and simplistically by you. Those old monks may have slept with women (who – adult American women – chose to let them!), but you’re putting spirituality inside a nicey-nicey politically-correct box and killing it. Those old monks at least gave their lives to bringing a bright, exciting practice to a new country. I bow to them, and turn my back on your position.

So what would you propose doing about some plainly harmful, unethical behavior by zen teachers? Attacking anyone who tries to come up with solutions is just more of the same enabling we’ve seen documented by Giko and others. Now you?

Get real. People fall in love irrespective of context and it is humanly impossible to prevent it. Not to recognize that as fact is deceptive. The more restrictions that are put in place, the more ascetic the approach to life becomes. Sexual abuse in the Catholicism might be one example of how asceticism can do as much or more damage than good. Regardless of context, it is important to control some of the damage falling in love can do by being as honest and open as possible about the possible direct and indirect costs, even though it is impossible to predict the future. I think that’s how the Catholicism failed, but also how I hope that those of us who are committed to what the Buddha taught can do better on. To go one step further, I think many marriages and relationships fail because the direct and indirect costs are not discussed. Should we develop restrictions in the attempt to safeguard practitioners and that result in establishing an artificial environment in which expectations are bound to fail? Or is did what the Buddha taught primarily emphasize principles that are generally applicable to life?

I support open discussion. My own observations suggest that the grapevine effect, gossip and hot-headedness that ensues around these sensitive issues can do as much or more damage than any initial infraction. On the other hand, gossip and hot-headedness are human reactions as well. I think a lot of damage and negative side effects can be avoided if perceived problems are dealt with directly, to the extent possible, when they are recognized.

I’ve got an interesting example for you from my past. At a national conference I attended years ago, I was informed by the grapevine that my former post-doctoral advisor was having an affair with a woman who I had worked alongside of. Instead of indulging in gossip, I spoke with one additional person to inquire about the affair – his best friend and colleague. When I got back from the meeting, my response was to call my former advisor on the phone, let him know that the grapevine was going and advise him of the potential damage to his family, career and hers if he avoided the issue. The solution for them ended up being atypical. After both families were informed, the affair was openly acknowledged and continues to this day. The woman ended up receiving a professorship at an Ivy League University.

I’ve only met Brad Warner once while attending one of his sittings in Ohio. We only spoke briefly outside afterwards, so I can’t say I got to know him or know him well. However, my impression, from the meeting and from reading his blog and books, is that his own practice is upright, honest and true to life. Why do I say “true to life”? Because I see him as one of the few people tackling some of the more sensitive and difficult issues, while being honest about his own life. The expressive language he uses allows him to reach a wider audience and people that most likely would not be inclined to read more mainstream publications like Sweeping Zen, for example. I think he is one of the people working hardest to keep Buddhism thriving and real – I suspect at some personal cost because of the flack I’ve seen thrown in his face occasionally due to that effort. I also say upright because, based on what I’ve read in his blog and books, I also don’t see Brad Warner as a person who recruits dates or sexual favors from his audience in the manner some musicians might. I think he is very much aware of the potential consequences and laws. I could be wrong. I think he is more upright and serious than you suggest. If I’m correct, I hope he has the good fortune to find someone who is aware and willing to face the indirect costs some of the flack he gets.

Yes, falling in love is unpredictable.And no one is advocating for celibacy. If this area is gray, then go outside of the gray zone to date. All Zen teachers make vows not to act on feelings that may harm another. I am not arguing against love, but trying to point out that students are falling for teachers for complex reasons that make them especially vulnerable. We are trying to teach how to become aware of our feelings and the effects of our feelings. There is a lot to study in that domain. Rather than following impulses and attractions, Zen teachers should become models for conscious relationships that do not cause harm. If there is a pattern, as Brad describes in his book, we need to ask if this is harming, and again ask, if he will *please* re-examine his way of thinking/advocating and acting in light of the science on this subject.

Define teacher. The only definition I think is useful is someone an individual has formally accepted as a teacher for a long term course of study, as occurs in a monastic setting or center. After that, everything is a gradual gradient of gray. The alternate side parking restrictions that recently went into effect for winter are teachers too.

As to “vows not to act on feelings that may harm another:” I’m sure the words are specific, that doesn’t mean the meaning is. To what types of relationships and interactions does that vow extend? What is “harm?” Not acting can be harmful too. I’d suggest that what is viewed as harmful is going to be different for each person in any interaction. In fact, you might view any social interaction as give and take, exchanges that are characterized by increases and decreases stress and compromises to reduce stress. That goes for the exchange we’re having as well. And that’s just direct interaction. What about if we include indirect interactions?

As for science, I’m scientist, I should know a bit about that, though I haven’t looked as the studies you refer to. I can tell you that it doesn’t matter what field, any study or experiment is contaminated by views and current paradigms of thought that are popular – from the type of question that is asked the motivation behind it, the design of question, the instrument used, the statistics choosen, etc etc.. I don’t know you, so I have to ask, have you ever reviewed a scientific manuscript? When I do, I never start with the text at all, because it lulls a person into accepting the author’s biases. And biases exist in how figures are presented as well. Even the best scientists are subject to the effects of social conditioning and current paradigms of thinking. From the way you’ve presented things above, you yourself may be falling prey to popular modes of thought.

I think you’ve written a really solid post here. I especially agree with what you said about the damage the gossiping, infighting and position taking does after the fact.

To be clear, I believe that people like this author and others who speak out about abuse are acting courageously. It takes great courage to speak out and become a lightning rod in this kind of situation, and to attempt to protect victims of abuse.

That being said, it is not enough to simply act courageously in this fashion. My past experience tells me that it is incumbent upon those of us who care, to accept the reality that not everybody shares our views of abuse. It is also incumbent upon us to find ways of reaching out to people different from ourselves, people that perhaps are ignorant of ways that abuse occurs and the tendency to create silence around difficult issues.

The problem comes from our frustration at the stonewalling, lying and obfuscation that occurs around issues of abuse. We grow angry at what we see as lying and stonewalling, but the anger doesn’t help the situation.

If there is lying and stonewalling, we need to accept it as part of the sickness. Attacking the sickness does not do any good. It merely creates more tension, anger and upset. Then we become part of the vicious, diseased cycle wherein we attack and harm others out of our own feelings of anger and doubt.

I know this firsthand. It is a very difficult nut to crack.

I don’t believe the solution is to keep quiet and pretend that predators and abuse don’t occur. I believe the solution lies in understanding the complexity of people’s motivations and the unfortunate reality that not everyone agrees with us or will be made to understand what we believe we understand. We need to do the best job we can to express ourselves and our point of view and take action as needed–preferably without anger or self-righteous judgment clouding the truth of our position.

The majority of the above article didn’t seem to be about abuse at all, although I have to agree that what a person might define as abuse, especially in borderline situations, is going to be different for every person. So in contrast to some other comments, I wasn’t talking about the Sasaki case or any abuse case per se, but rather responding to issues with how cases are handled that can take away our individual freedoms – our right to decide for ourselves.

In terms of stonewalling, lying and obfuscation, I think that may be the case, or appear to be from the outside, when people involved in any kind of difficult situation hold to views strongly, or hold to views that they are unaware of. I’d have to agree that those situations can result in cyclic behavior that is unproductive. How to cope with that is going be very dependent on the specifics and severity of the situation in question. Outside of the monastic setting it may be over-stepping bounds.

thank you for you comment. The larger context for this entire discussion is sexual abuse of students by teachers. When you write that

“People fall in love irrespective of context and it is humanly impossible to prevent it. Not to recognize that as fact is deceptive. The more restrictions that are put in place, the more ascetic the approach to life becomes.”

I wonder if you would apply your broadly stated idea regarding ‘restrictions’ to the non-falling-in-love situations that spurred all the comments of late on sweeping zen.

As a teacher, and like many other teachers, I ‘restrict’ myself in the area of sexual contact with students. In other words, I don’t have such contact, period. I don’t feel particularly restricted by acting in this manner, or that I am ‘ascetic’ in my approach to life, therefore, but I do feel more loving in the way that my students and I, and possibly others, need love to be. In truth, I feel less restricted in the area of loving because of the incredible opening to life that this discipline allows in the student-teacher relationship. [let me quote CG Jung here with one of the most useful definitions I’ve read eg “Discipline is obedience to awareness.”]

It may not be quite so useful to assume that ‘restriction’ leads to ascetic life. That’s a pretty broad brush stroke. In practice, the result of such discipline can be quite the reverse. We all live with restrictions of all kinds, as you know. We choose to and not simply to avoid legal consequences. We choose to because it has proven to be good for us and good for others. In situations where the risk of causing harm to self or other has been proven over and over again, what some call ‘restriction’ might better be labeled common sense, or care, or compassion, or love.

You pose a very good question. One that I’ve given some thought to after reading some of the early reports and comments on the Sasaki case. Making people aware that a monastery or similar setting is not a refuge from human beings being human is very important and I think this might be helpful thing for anyone to see in writing when they officially become a member or student at a Sangha or monastery. Beyond that, written descriptions of the practices that would inform people of what they can expect, so that they find it easier to recognize inappropriate behavior as inappropriate, would be one suggestion. My personal view is that physical contact of the non-falling-in-love variety be off limits unless acknowledged at the outset, especially in dokusan. Even adjustments of sitting posture can be done by example or in public. My Center uses a Kyosaku, but people are informed of its usage and ostensible purpose during an introductory session for anyone new and except for sesshin and all-day sittings it’s voluntary.

“It may not be quite so useful to assume that ‘restriction’ leads to ascetic life.” I agree with this statement when the decisions are a personal choice, and admire and respect the reasons you’ve stated for making them — provided you’re giving an accurate description of the resulting environment and interactions with your students,* you’re probably aware that not all people might agree. When such choices are motivated by the “wisdom-power” derived from practice of the way, as opposed to the will-power so prevalent in our society, they can be very enriching. In contrast, when restrictions are motivated by will-power, they oppose the gradual diffusion of peace into our lives that the way allows. Different people have different limits and are at different stages of their own practice, so applying more restrictions can be stumbling blocks to practice and result in extreme or unexpected outbursts in behavior that are the very antithesis of common sense, care, compassion and/or love of the agape variety.

*I hope you’re not being too easy on your students. You actually might be holding them back.

thank you, Gisella, for your thoughtful response. So good to have more light, less heat, in these considerations.

I had to smile at your *’d comment at the end. I’ve never been told I was too easy by a student, but perhaps that’s because even when push comes to shove in the dokusan room, or otherwise, students know I am not power tripping, but trying to serve their aspirations the best way I know how. In part, that comes from the openness between us that I wrote about initially, an openness based on trust that is hard won given the fact that it’s just two real people sitting there, face to face, and we all have our histories sitting there, too. But, for the most part, it seems, we both can say anything to each other, and often do.

Knowing what just the right amount of so-called restriction and so-called freedom (I can barely use the word since freedom is not the antonym) is, oryoki style, is one of the great skills of living, as you no doubt know. In my case, there are not enough fingers and toes in the world to count on for the number of times I’ve been mistaken in my life. Still, we must try because the stakes are so high, and especially when one is voluntarily entrusted with the spiritual aspirations of others.

To use that trust for one’s own purposes defines betrayal, as I see it, and yet until a teacher becomes conscious of his or her true motivations, there’s no end to the need for more fingers and toes.

I suppose what it comes down to for me is the nature of the intimacy in the student-teacher relationship, and how both student and teacher want to and choose to use it. I am no stranger to physical or sexual abuse, so I am quite aware of when even the slightest rumour or whiff of these enters the air, and certainly make sure these are absent in my relations with students. As I said, real “intimacy” is key, and where manipulation is the covert or even unconscious motivation, then intimacy is absent even if it does not ‘feel’ that way. But, learning to discern the root of feelings is part of our practice, is it not?

Your suggestion re clear and written expectations, guidelines, teachings, re behaviour and practice is excellent. When such exist, the lack of confusion serves everyone; and if confusion does make its way into one’s feelings or understanding, there is a preexisting standard to clarify, confirm or help people regain their awareness. This might be especially helpful for a student when a teacher is not conscious of real motivations, or simply has decided to ignore them and indulge in behaviours that may harm students. No doubt, it is the very reasons certain sanghas have been explicit with such statements.

Sesshin can so easily open one up completely (easily, and painfully, as we know!) and so it is especially important at such times for the kind of intimacy I refer to to be able to function completely on behalf of the student’s aspiration, life and practice. Any misuse by a teacher for the teacher’s needs is just plain wrong. And so it is especially important at such times that a teacher remain 100% aware that even the slightest physical contact, if any, can be overwhelming. A fingertip on a shoulder can be like pouring the ocean into a teacup. A hug can be so much more overwhelming than that. And, besides, what’s wrong with a student suffering deeply in the presence of a loving teacher without the teacher interfering and making him or herself ‘important’ by so doing, short circuiting the student’s ability to survive their life, as my teacher once challenged me to do? I have a hands off policy at such times. [but let me add that one way I learned to ‘survive my life” was when I was shuso and used the kyosaku, much with the same approach as at your centre. In doing so, I learned something about initmacy and compassion through that damned stick. Since I was the object of physical abuse, I did not want to use it and tried to get out of it, but I was not allowed, wisely, I must admit, and by using it, I became, as I told my teacher, “free of the stick.” Amazing.]

I like your encouragement for people to discern the difference between will-powrer and wisdom-power. That latter is a pretty high bar for most people, as anyone paying attention will attest, but even if we are not yet there, we can be inspired to reach it in our practice. I don’t think doing our best in this regard and failing at it constitutes the kind of fakery or repression that leads to the unexpected outbursts to which you refer and, frankly, I think teachers should always try. There’s far less loss in trying and failing than in ignoring because one is not yet there.

Okay – I’ve gone on enough. But I feel inspired by your posting to try keep opening things up until, hopefully, we might learn to see.

Thank you for your questions and your appreciation. Teacher status is conferred on people who lead classes, are ordained as priest, or have received any empowerments designated as teacher. You may practice at a Zen center that has multiple teachers, and even if you have entered a formal relationship with one teacher, another teacher may not date you. These are rules listed at various Zen centers who have ethics codes.
As a clinical psychologist and as an ordained priest I have studied the literature across a multi-disciplinary field. I have found a unanimous opinion regarding ethics and potential harm. Let’s discuss potential bias after you dive into the research.

Thanks for your wise and clarifying words. I know you to value your students and to be able to respond to each personally. I think it is difficult for people to understand just how vulnerable you need to become in order for Zen to do its work with each of us. This is a very fine and subtle work. Lots of caring, and knowing when to say NO. Both are essential, and as you say, if done properly–what a joy.

thank you, grace. there is no advantage to maintaining our cut off, shut down, ego driven, posturing existence – none at all – if what we really want is for life to live, in us, our students, and everywhere. and, yes – it does take the kind of risk called vulnerability, but so what? that risk is no risk at all, except to a very very small but loud part of our psyche that, in the end, will take credit for our vulnerability, too – so, it knows how to please itself! ha! and you are so right, too, about the joy possible. ooh, that joy! worth everything. besides, the opposite way’s been tried. the evidence is clear. the results are in, and they are called ‘history’. what joy to be doing this together.

The results are not in. You Americans are hopeless! Here in the UK, whilst there have also been some sex scandals here, I personally know of MANY teachers in Buddhist traditions who have sucessfully dated, sometimes married and had children with, members of their sangha. Not to my knowledge formal Zen Teacher-Student relationships, there aren’t so many of them here. But equivalent ones in Tibetan sanghas, yes, for example.

While your American Zen world might be obsessed with sex, we Brits are a bit more prudish by nature maybe! I’m not disputing for one moment that there are sometimes abuses (there always are in sexual relationships)… Just I’m saying clearly from my experience, that I can think of many, many straightforward sexual relationships between teachers in sanghas and students coming along to those sanghas. It’s normal, they hang out together, they share the same interests, they inspire each other. As in just about everything else, it seems the USA thinks of itself as the centre of the world! We should have more married Buddhist teachers, teaching together, and then it sets a better example for what’s possible…

As more information emerges, it is clear that Joshu Sasaki’s behavior was inappropriate, and at least in some cases, abusive. I share in the general sadness and dismay that women were subjected to unwanted touching and that this matter was never resolved, despite being addressed proactively more than once by the sangha.

However, I disagree with just about everything else that is being declared in the wake of these revelations. First of all, I disagree wholeheartedly that engaging in public outrage and inciting a mob to go after the ‘bad guy’ is either the way to address this situation OR an enlightened way to act. I see these orgies of public chastisement as an exercise in ego delusion for all involved; it is all about separating out and setting oneself and one’s team against the ‘bad guy,’ which further muddies the view of how the world actually works.

As a woman and feminist, I am also dismayed at the tone and rhetoric used, especially by other people claiming to be feminists, in the wake of such revelations. I am of the school of feminism that women truly are equal to men and it is only history and social custom that have made gender roles unequal, not inherent weakness on the part of women. I resent and resist the infantilization of women, the assumption that if something goes wrong, the woman is always the victim. Yes, I disagree with “blaming the victim” such as in cases of blaming a woman who was raped for having caused the act by how she was dressed. However, I disagree with the opposite extreme, the assumption that any time something goes wrong, a woman was a helpless, passive recipient of the wiles of some evil predator, rather than an active agent who was mutually involved in the decision making process that led to the unfortunate situation.

I agree that sexual relationships between a therapist and client are by nature unethical due to the precise nature of therapy and of the therapeutic relationship. However, I strongly resist drawing a parallel between the therapeutic relationship and the relationship between spiritual teacher and student. First and foremost because at least traditionally, Zen students are expected to be able to hold their own and endure in tough circumstances, rather than being seen as fragile souls that need to be coddled and protected. I am an avid advocate of the position that ZEN IS NOT THERAPY. I actually find the push in American society to turn Zen into therapy and make the healing of the personality the goal of practice deeply disturbing. I see two camps forming: the camp that believes awakening is more important than anything else, including making a successful life as a participant in normal society, and the camp that believes that a successful life in the world is the goal and the evidence of good practice and awakening. We fail to take note that many, if not most, of the teachers and ancestors we admire walked away from worldly success and lives and roles that met the approval of worldly people. Including the brave female students and teachers you chastised in your book for not having been feminine enough to pass muster as true women because they took on roles and personalities that were more commonly associated with men.

I actually think the ‘therapization of Zen’ is part of the problem, not the solution, when it comes to sexual problems with Zen teachers. Part of the problem is the persistent myth that waking up to the nature of reality magically resets the personality and eradicates years of conditioning and life experience, and even neurological and biological factors in behavior. This myth fosters a culture in which teachers are not addressed and treated like normal human beings and in which students are encouraged to hold on to the dangerous myths that make them more likely to endure mistreatment or abuse. I think the best way to empower not only women, but everyone in the sangha (men can be victims of abuse, too), is to educate and push against the false notion of spiritual perfection and supermen (and superwomen).

The more I read about Joshu Sasaki, the more it seems his behavior was the product of having had his normal sexual development disrupted at age 14, then being put into an environment where his only contact with women (as he is apparently heterosexual) was with his female students, whom I assume often treated him with awe and reverence. I see the problem as institutional and systematic, not a matter of protecting damsels in distress from dragons and big bad wolves. What if people had been able to see Sasaki as a human being instead of a spiritual superman? We need to grow up and recognize that we are sexual beings and that everyone, regardless of their position in society, craves and needs sexual contact (except for the small portion of people who actually are asexual). I think it is incredibly immature and conservative in the worst sense of the word (trying to push society back to cultures and mores we have already learned better than to observe) to argue that spiritual teachers can never, under any circumstances, have healthy, ethical relationships with students or members of their congregations. First of all, as Brad Warner has pointed out, these folks often have most, if not all of their social milieu, made up of members of their spiritual group, and second of all, these people are likely to be people who value spirituality in a partner–something they are more apt to find in a strong student than elsewhere.

And are we going to continue to pretend that women are not often attracted to people in positions of power, and that this attraction can lead to mutually enjoyable experiences? I consider myself a strong, very independent minded woman, and I am attracted to and enjoy encounters with men who are more powerful than me. It is actually damned hard for me to find men who are not intimidated by my intelligence, spiritually driven outlook, forceful personality, and affinity for traditionally male dominated interests, and who are also stronger than me in one or all of these areas. But when I find that rare man, the result is wonderful–a relationship in which both people can truly challenge one another and grow together spiritually and overall. I have been with men who are older than me, men in positions of power over than me, and never once have I felt victimized, even when I look back and think, “WTF was I doing?” I know that I played an active role in pursuing those relationships–as do many other women, who are not victims by default. And I learned and grew from all those experiences. Not all spiritual teachers who enter into relationships with students are seducers, and are not even always the people who initiate the pursuit of such a relationship.

I think singling out Brad Warner as a bad guy is an especially egregious example–anyone who has spent five minutes around Warner should know better than to think he is seducing all his students with his mystical aura, domineering personality, and charisma. I bet you some of his female students could do way more harm to him than he to them in a relationship, but mind you I am not of the camp that all women are helpless belles waiting to either be rescued or become victims. We can do our own damage too. Even to someone who has more power than us socially. Hell, women have been using sexual relations with powerful men to their advantage for eons. It truly can go both ways, INCLUDING in the Zen world. A woman who wants more access to the teacher or to feel more powerful herself may actively seek a sexual connection with a teacher. I mean, if spirituality is your thing, what is more exciting than the thought of sex with someone enlightened and spiritually powerful? Until you actually have the experience and realize that sex is just sex, and sexual ability is not at all tied to moral or spiritual ability, and possibly even the opposite may be true. Can we all repeat: SPIRITUAL INSIGHT OR POWER DOES NOT MAKE YOU A SUPERMAN OR SUPERWOMAN.

The last thing I think is important to point out is that based on what I have read from and about him, for all his failings, Sasaki seems to be (or have been, at least), a powerful teacher who was able to connect with his students’ desire to awaken. I respect that some women who studied under him probably chose to do so because they felt he could help them wake up and that was more important to them than anything else. I respect such women and their choice. I don’t know if I would have put up with it myself, but I would like to think I would choose doing whatever I thought I needed to do to wake up, even if that meant enduring unpleasant situations and even abuse. I am not saying I believe such things are necessary, or should go on, of course, just that I believe we all learn as adults that the world is not as neat and tidy as we were taught it was as children, and sometimes we are faced with difficult choices such as having the only teacher(s) on the block who may be able to help us wake up being bereft of the ability to keep it in their pants. I hope I continue to live in a world in which I am allowed to make my own choice to study under a teacher who has spiritual insight but maybe not all his/her ducks in a row otherwise, instead of finding myself in a sanitized Zen world in which the only people allowed to continue to teach are people who have mustered the approval of the Zen world’s equivalents of Dolores Umbridge.

I love that you see the shades of gray (no pun intended) and the issues with equating zen to therapy and all that entails.

I think that abuse needs to be met head on, and the code of silence broken. I also think that we actually help to perpetuate abuse when we become angry and devalue others’ opinions. EVEN if those opinions are abhorrent to us.

There are those who think same sex marriage is morally and ethically repugnant and wrong. They will insult you and smear you for saying that you think gay people are equal to straight people.

However, there are also those who will do the same from the opposite camp.

Each side truly believes they are correct and find the other camps’ position wrong and not worth trying to understand.

When we sit back and proclaim the moral and ethical high ground, we tend to actually lose it completely. I see it again and again. people who hold the theoretically “correct” positions behaving in terrible ways to those they deem as “wrong.”

I have often engaged in this myself.

What we need to see here is the patterns that continually emerge. The anger and blaming is actually PART of the cycle of abuse. It doesn’t heal it at all.

We really need to see that belittling people that hold opposing views–even ignorant views–is not the way to heal the abuses and create new paths.

Thanks for your thoughtful piece. I have never tried to “get” Sasaki. I believe that his sangha should have worked to help him stop. Insist that he stop. This has been outside the charter of the zen disciple–up to now. I have advocated that sanghas look into this.

As for Brad Warner, my tone could have been improved. But I did not single him out. I responded to his calling my article kuso (shit) and telling me that my discussion was causing harm. Brad is a big boy, almost 50. To me he likes to write as if he is beyond the rules. He called me out, and I answered.

I will work on refining my tone, but let’s get the facts straight. He claims online that he has the right to date women in his sangha. I disagree.
Finally, for Zen to gow up in Western culture, it needs to own that it is an institution–priests are a form of clergy in the West. If we refuse to apply the therapeutic model, let’s look to the way other religious groups are handling clergy misconduct.
We need to keep talking, and I will keep trying to be clear.

I think one thing that might be important to note is that rules and laws are made because they generally keep things straight and simple, and are therefore useful. However, simply stating that it is a rule and therefore is always correct–misses the point.

Perhaps Brad can occasionally date a woman or two or even three in his sangha over the years. It’s theoretically possible, depending on how it’s handled.

I reject the notion that every case of a clergy member engaging in romantic encounters or dating a member of the congregation they work with is unethical and illegal.

That doesn’t make sense to me.

However, I understand why rules and laws are necessary. I think it might be okay to have the rule that forbids Zen priests engaging in affairs with their students and fellow practitioners. So perhaps Brad and others like him are inconvenienced by this. It wouldn’t be the end of the world, and may serve to protect the majority.

But if we are being sincere about addressing these issues, then taking simple black and white moral stances on every situation is not helpful. Yes, there may indeed be times when a teacher dating a student is just fine.

It happens. I am certain it happens even when nobody is there to shepherd them through the process and they don’t abide by a set of rules to do so. I also think it likely that people are harmed even when they try to follow some set of rules.

Let’s not mistake the rules for the truth.

There have been abuses of power, for which many are culpable–not just one or two perpetrators or predators.

There will always, likely, be abuses of power.

Being able to discuss and entertain the troubling gray areas is part of being an adult and being open to others, and creating common ground even when there is a great divide.

In fact, I think it likely that in the majority of cases, perhaps even 95 or 98 percent of cases, it is probably a bad idea or unethical to engage in a romance where that imbalance of power exists (such as clergy etc).

However, if we close ourselves off to even discussing the potential gray areas, we become rigid and unable to communicate our positions to those who perhaps have differing views–and perhaps a point or two that could help make things better.

“But if we are being sincere about addressing these issues, then taking simple black and white moral stances on every situation is not helpful.”

I would only like to point out that what I believe most of us are pointing to is not morality, but ethics. Morality deals in the realm of personal conduct and ethics is the scientific study of that conduct on a collective scale. Ethics is a science, and it’s important we not forget that.

Of course, morality and ethics are linked, but they are traditionally understood as being quite different in areas like sociology, medicine, the law and, also, moral philosophy.

Morality is an absolute declaration. Ethics involve making a decision, based on scientific data available, that helps us decide the best course of action when, admittedly, it won’t always capture the full extent of things. Morality focuses on conduct with or sometimes without rationale as to why; it is strictly the obedience of following rules without the need to see it from various angles.

In short, morality, as I understand it, judges the character of an individual. Ethics judges not the character of anyone, and simply lays out a framework for how we believe individuals in a particular role should optimally behave. Will it fail to understand the nuances of every possible variable? Yes, it will fail to do that. But, the ethical guidelines any professional body assumes is based on research and data to justify the reason for something.

Of course, I agree that science and using ethics in the way you describe is probably the best method we have for dealing with these kinds of questions.

However, in terms of actually stopping this vicious cycle of moralizing and creating more harm when wrongs DO occur–we need to be comfortable dealing with the reality that gray areas do exist.

In my opinion, the attempt to finish the discussion simply by saying, “well science proves this” or “studies have shown such and such” is ineffective. Why? Because as you can see in politics, people just cite counter-studies and counter-evidence that backs up the kinds of ideas that they agree with.

Science is not going to end these sorts of issues. New ways of communicating and understanding, less digging in and more coming to grips with uncertainty and possibility–I believe that road is more difficult, more likely to lead somewhere positive.

Ethics is NOT a science. It’s a discipline, an area of study or inquiry, but it is NOT a science. It is not merely quantitative and there are significant subjective confounders engaged in its study, to point out only ONE problem with classifying ethics as a science.

2+2 equals 4. Every time. A teacher screwing a student does NOT equal disruption or harm every time, mostly because no two students, teachers, moments or even sexual experiences is similar enough to elevate the study of such things to the level of ‘science’. Calling it a science does not make it so.

This is quite similar to an argument we’ve been hearing a lot lately: “Sandra Fluke wants the government to pay for her birth control.” Yes, Brad Warner has admitted to a relationship with a student. And I’m sure that Sandra Fluke would be willing take advantage of the birth control provisions of the ACA. But the latter is not what Sandra Fluke is arguing, and neither is the latter what Warner is arguing. You are continuing to make this needlessly personal.

When I read all these things, I keep coming back to two thoughts. First – it’s just basic Buddhist ethics. Leave aside “teacher”/”student” considerations – if you enter into a relationship with someone with a genuine wish and attepmts for their well-being, then it’s ok. Labels get added on later. So, to give a Zen example, would anyone suggest that Eve Marko is being abused by Bernie Glassman in being married to him, even though she was and still is his student?

But second, and more important, the unethical (ie. not based on real wellbeing) actions of teachers towards their students for me points to a whole problem with the idea of “teachers” in general. Rather than strengthening and legalising what a “teacher” can or can’t do, my own feeling is to question and engage with the whole idea of the way we think of “teachers” as a kind of power-bearing individual in the first place, which in Zen is perpectuated right in the documents of lineage transmission even with much talk of Patriarchy. Personally, I would like to see a stronger move within Zen to seeing the practices as our teacher, and our current “teachers” more as Elders within our cultures of practice.

In the end, people coming regularly into contact with each other will sometime form sexual relationships, that’s human fact. Rather than try to ban it, I would put the stress on us all being equal human beings who should try with all our imperfect efforts to relate to each other with kindness, and without too much judgement. Although I agree wholeheartedly that abusive Teacher-Student affairs are a really bad thing, I see the trouble lying in the inequality of the power-relationships that are set up by the Teacher-Student relationship. It’s inevitable, we have so many examples in our culture such as Doctor-Patient, Therapist-Client etc, and Buddhism seems to be influenced by this. I’d push for more of a Quakerly sense of shared gatherings, and a wisdom to learn from beyond any particular individual. That’s how I approach it in the groups I work with here in England.

ps I would just add, please don’t think I’m under-estimating the negatives effects here. Two years ago, just before my Circle Dharma Holder ceremony in the Zen Peacemakers, I learned about the history of abuses in the Zen lineages (somehow, being in a little corner of England, I’d not come across these stories until someone talked to me about them). After copying out the Keshimyaku documents, and discussing and reflecting on the whole nature of “Dharma Transmission”, I turned down my ceremony and coordinate groups now in an open, neutral way. The abuses I read about shocked me so much that I will probably never be able to enter into a “Lineage” as a teacher. In the groups I coordinate here, I try to develop a circle spirit to what we do, making it clear that I’m in no way a teacher. I recently moved to a different city, and passed the running of the old group to someone else. I cannot be certain he won’t end up sleeping with someone who comes to the group – all I CAN do, is in the time I was steering the group I can create a culture of equality, so people are less likely to see him (or me) as a Teacher in too strong a sense. If he was single and wants to start a normal relationship with someone coming along, then the power-relations are such that it would not seem awkward or damaging to the group. But since he’s married, then right now it would be an affair, which would be a problem from a basic position of Buddhist ethics, not specifically for the group, since he is not some “exemplar” of what the group should be…. Messes are inevitable, but we can create a culture where they are less significant, and more related simply to human kindness.

The case you brought up with Eve and Bernie is interesting in that I think it does highlight my issues with “transmission” amongst lay people. I doubt any dharma transmission that’s between partners. Sorry, I don’t think that’s appropriate either, no matter if there’s abuse in there or not. Spiritual friends who can affirm your experience and be a guide when necessary is what we should really emphasize here. It’s simply ridiculous to prize transmissions, teachers, lineages, etc at all, IMHO, but especially if that kind of favoritism shows up.

Yes, sad. I must admit to hugging. But I do not give “good” hugs, just hugs. So far, so good. But whatever my good intention is, somebody may take the hug the wrong way. Mostly, I think as a grandma, who is faithfully married, chances are slim. But especially during sesshin, when people are ultra-sensitive and energized, it is wrong for a teacher to use that energy for his/her own purpose.

I don’t want to engage in name calling. Rather, I want to explore what is “wrong” in this case. How can we bring Zen forward and make it safe when any woman can be bedded by the Zen teacher. You will be learning more about how teachers use their Dharma to convince women that resisting them is wrong. How they use their charisma to take advantage, and how badly damaged some women can become. Women have an opportunity to recover from sexual harassment, incest, sexual abuse, date rape, and other ills when they come to a Zen teacher. He deals with their needs or he can take advantage of their vulnerability. Then the opportunity for Zen to help is lost. We need rules, and there are exceptions. The exceptions are so rare and so well discussed in the community, that they almost never happen. And they have nothing to do with casual “dating.”

‘Women have an opportunity to recover from sexual harassment, incest, sexual abuse, date rape, and other ills when they come to a Zen teacher.’ Really? These things may be a side effect of entering the path to awakening, but I think perhaps you are conflating your roles as psychologist and Zen teacher if you feel this opportunity is central to the experience.

I get your point and I have spent some time teaching on the difference between two. I know my roles, and I would also like to say that suffering was the Buddha’s main business. If suffering comes, we meet the suffering. Is that central enough? Zen teaches that this very life, this very body, this moment this is Buddha. What gets in the way? We meet each moment, meet each person and what s/he brings. there is no other way than to deal with what is. We start where we are.

Yes, we get the point, you ‘know your roles’, you keep reiterating what they are. Except that the responses to suffering are much different for psychology and Buddhism. The former is about reassuring that, despite evidence to the contrary, the self is basically okay. It helps reconcile repressed material and integrate this self with society. The latter, however, declares that the self is the root of the problem and must be seen as the socially conditioned illusion that it is. While there are undoubtably times when the 2 paths intersect. the differences are fundamental, and the methods sometimes necessarily contradictory.

This conversation triggers a number of interesting memories for me. The first is of my graduate advisor, who was notorious for routinely, albeit unsuccessfully, offering his home as a residence to incoming female, but never male, graduate students. The second memory flows from a workshop I attended at an Episcopal campus ministry conference on the subject of sexual relations between clergy and parishioners. There, approximately three-quarters of the spouses raised their hands when asked if they were simple members of their respective parishes when they met their future clergy spouses. The third was when I was asked to provide legal advice to my home monastery regarding it’s work preparing an intimate relations policy for teachers, priests, and sangha members. There, I had the difficult duty of advising that in my homes state, if an ordained person engages in sexual behavior with a member, it is a crime, and very likely a felony.

This is tough territory, where the normal ideas of power, vulnerability, and influence may not always work to map out the territory in ways that meaningfully help prevent suffering and abuse. That said, there ought also be absolutely no debate that predatory behavior on the part of powerful people towards the vulnerable ought never be tolerated, whether tacitly or otherwise. The solution isn’t to turn a blind eye, couch the conduct in dharma language, or otherwise pretend it doesn’t violate our vows. Nor is it necessary to create walls of celibacy, artificial structures to distance people from one another, and rules that in the end objectify everyone.

Herp-Derp….how about, oh…I dunno….not creating such a huge distinction between teacher and student? Zen teachers seem to lack the ability to honestly respond to situations that really shouldn’t baffle them. More than half the activity I’ve seen at sanghas I’ve visited or in which I’ve participated has been devoted to self-help/actualization, build-a-more-comfortable-ego ‘non-dharma’.

Brad Warner has posted about this on his blog–not sure if I should link to it or not, given the acrimony now.

This, by the way, is exactly what I was pointing out about the vicious cycle these things take. Brad had an opinion on the matter–perhaps an unpopular one. And his method of discussing and opining certainly left him open to criticism.

However, the retaliatory blog posts simply shut down the communication. He is hurt and angry and feels that at least one “innocent” person has been victimized by what was written about them in this war of words.

So now the lines of communication are shut down. Brad is someone who you may have been able to find common ground with eventually.

With this blog post and other similar ones, you effectively preached to the choir–people who already agree with you. For others, your posts were attacking and divisive and simplistic in their black and white portrayals of the subject matter.

And for a Zen priest like Brad, who was a good person to reach out to–you’ve now isolated him and shut him down with attacking rhetoric.

This is a case example of why this kind of dialog usually doesn’t work. If we come from a place of sarcasm, anger, and dismissal, we end up losing the thing we are supposedly striving for.

Do we want to simply just be right, or do we want to actually build understanding and create new models of conflict resolution that actually work?

I don’t think you fully understand what the Buddha meant by suffering. Further, I don’t think you understand how Brad teaches. I’ve never met or practiced with you, a woman so stuffed with learning and expertise, but Brad teaches in a very ‘first among equals’ sort of way. He REALLY doesn’t seem that authoritative. He’s master of ceremonies, instructs in the sitting and the bowing, does a little talk, and gently corrects misunderstandings when they show up. I don’t think he does dokusan – he didn’t do it the few times I sat with his group.

The man is awkward and boyish, which is endearing, but hardly the stuff of a sexual predator. He just doesn’t wield the stick of authority in the way that some teachers do.

You have an agenda, Grace – and you think it’s noble and good-hearted – and in the cases of ACTUAL non-consensual sexual abuse, you may have some small positive effect; but you’re seeing everything through that agenda in so doing, you’ve gravely missed the mark here. You are doing a lot of damage because you believe your opinion so strongly that you’ve gone and insinuated that Brad Warner has committed some grave crime.

The only crime he committed is to question the lens through which you filter your world and how closely you cherish your beliefs about how it operates. You are on a crusade in the name of the Dharma and you don’t seem to be able to examine the accuracy of your opinions. Perhaps we should identify IF there were victims before we start stringing up transgressors. Can you pause your crusade long enough to do that before we start burning witches here?

I think I mistook some of Brad’s comments in his books to be about his privilege to sleep with women. But I do not know Brad, and apparently that was not who was showing up in my blog. Those who know him have clearly pointed out to me that is not how he operates, and what he says in his “punk” voice is not what I think it is. Sometimes we see a shadow, not the person. I apologize since I have heard from others I trust that what I thought Brad was saying is not what he was saying.

That said, I believe that we need to look very carefully at the issues of even subtle power. There is a mantle around the teacher, even when he claims to be the equal version. I do not see women as victims in this case, but it often ends badly for student,teacher and sangha. And studying how that works is really my point. I did not make it very well. And I am open to correction, as I believe all teachers should be.

I replying to your comment to me on the main thread because for some reason, there is no “reply” tab on either my post or your response.

Thanks for the feedback. As a response to your description of the “blind trust” aspect to the Zen teacher/student dynamic, I’d like to draw your attention to the posts by “River” in the Witnessing Council thread. In her posts she describes a very different style of practice than what you are describing in your reply to me. Her description reflects my own understanding and experience of Zen practice and speaks directly to what I was trying to get at in my description about “blind trust”. It seems that what River describes so well is a fundamentally different way of engaging in Zen practice than the way you describe or perhaps are familiar with.

The first question to answer now becomes whether or not people have the right to choose to practice this very physical, and messy style of Zen? Any thoughts?

Of course, people can practice as they wish. I practiced Rinzai Zen in Japan. I just don’t think it translates well (yet) in this country. There, they have checks and balances in their community. Temple priests would not be able to have the kinds of relationships that have allegedly occurred at Rinzaiji. Also, people in Japan may trust a koan master with koan study, but will not idealize in the same way we do here–they have had centuries to see the difficulties.

I have practiced koan zen since 2004 and have had dokusan with 4 teachers in the Diamond Sangha lineage as well as private interviews with 3 masters in Chan Master Sheng Yen’s lineage (two of whom had a translator present, and one did not). In every case I can say without reservation that these private encounters with these teachers were profoundly transformative and deepened my practice. Not having experienced any other kind of Zen, I cannot make comparisons. But I do think koan zen does translate well to the West.

Yes, there are opportunities for abuse and mistakes and power issues. There were times when my projections of power, my desire to see a “fully enlightened being” who could relieve me of my suffering, my anger, disappointed expectations, and fears somehow could have been manipulated or abused … but simply were not. I look on these teachers and my interactions with them with gratitude and affection. There were risks involved. I wouldn’t have it any other way.

thank you for answering. i found your posting by accident! but I found it. I read and then reread River’s posting. Very few people, I believe, have done the work to know themselves quite so scrupulously as River reports, though Zen rooted in Hakuin may have that reputation. Still, there is no way for us to be sure of what actually goes on in one person or another. River’s narrative is wonderful for what it provides in this regard.

It sounds horrific, exciting, sincere, insane, idealized, grounded by River’s aspiration, and perfect for River because River made sure that choice was all the way through that posting. As she says, she always chose to walk into that room and could have walked out. [Is surrender where choice remains still surrender? Only River may answer that for River. As someone who had to violently fight his way out of more than one situation to avoid surrender without choice in the equation, and use weapons to succeed, I have some experience of what nonchoice surrender might be. But, again, River speaks for River. Peter speaks for himself in just the same way.]

Not everyone could withstand what River did, as I’m sure you know. Given that River reports full agency in every situation and every regard, I would not presume judgment from the outside of that experience. I love my wife. Others may wonder why I do; I wonder why they don’t, and am grateful for the lack of complication.

I do not practice the details River reports, but that is of no matter; I also do not practice with less aspiration or willingness to get to the root of life itself. It looks different, it sounds different. I have no interest in that. If I say let’s meet at the corner of Here and Now, I will be there. I trust that River will as well. If others disagree, that is fine. There are many places and ways we can meet, many corners, many edges that touch. Let’s just be sure we do our best to get there.

I should say as part of this that my vows mean quite a bit to me. They are my constant friend. They kick ass with no less ferocity than the energy in River’s narrative. Meeting those vows requires everything I can be and keeps me facing a direction I love and want for the world. No Zen master I’ve ever met has asked more, nor, I believe, can ‘more’ be asked. So, that is part of my answer, too. I hope some of this is of use, IH, and I appreciate your question. Good stuff, indeed.

Thanks for the replies. I agree with what you’ve both said and I think this points to some complexities which need to be considered.

The fact that people can and should be able to practice Zen as they choose seems to indicate that any rules made for the safety of students must somehow allow for the innate physicality of some traditions. Unfortunately, I think we are also in agreement that physicality in the sanzen room can expose a student to potential abuse. River’s post expresses the experience of a person who has willing chosen to practice in this way, despite all the imperfections and dangers inherent in this style of encounter, and I think we all agree that she has the right to so. So the problem becomes; How do (or can) we begin to build “safeguards” into such extreme traditions without destroying the potential to offer others a chance to choose to practice in the same way River so wonderfully describes?

thank you for your note. so clear. there are no absolute safeguards that can be built into such a situation that do not already exist. They are called the Precepts and every Zen teacher I know of has received them. Now, since teachers break Precepts, institutional rules are in place. But, as we see, there is no way to ensure that these will be adhered to.

I could go on in this vein, but let’s jump to it: The focus is on the teacher, then, given that Precepts and rules are already in place [and I add that they are also in place for those who run an institution eg the teacher’s monks, nuns, senior students etc.]

The Dalai Lama Lama suggests that a student watch a teacher for a long time before becoming a student. Watch and discern. Listen and discern. Be willing to know what may be wonderful to know, and not allow what is wonderful to cloud one’s judgment when what is unpleasant appears. This includes being willing to try to discover if rumours have any basis in fact. Not so easy to do, eh?, especially when one is ‘an outsider’ considering being accepted as a student. What a burden this is!

But even if a student does this, there is always the possibility that a teacher will be abusive of the situation, and the ‘blind trust’ of a student’s of sincere aspiration. This is one reason that such abuse, and any enabling of it by a teacher’s senior students, is such a high level violation. To take advantage in such a situation is a violation not just of body, but of a student’s ability to believe she can trust herself with anyone, anywhere, at any time (since the student gave it her all in observing and making a judgment that, “Yes. I can trust this teacher. I will “give my trust to him” as a student!”)

So, in the end, because the focus is on the teacher, the focus is on the student or potential student, as well. Big time. So vulnerable. So open. Just like we want to be so that we may know life intimately. I am a father and grandfather. When I think of my children and grandchildren I see them this way, too. “Where are the safeguards against what will hurt them?” I ask. “Quick! Bring them here!” And often, for a time, they appear and we can protect them. And sometimes we cannot. Ultimately, we cannot. There is no safeguard, no guarantee that life will be kind, is there?

This is why the teacher’s integrity, and the student’s discernment, is crucial. That is all the safeguard we have. So, I ask you with the hope that you, me, each of us, decide for ourselves, “Now what?”

It is the koan of living, after all. Everything is in the question, and your reply. [Do we really practice so differently, as you originally thought?]

Dear Peter,
Thanks for the thoughtful response. Ultimately, I think that both Soto and Rinzai styles of practice lead to similar outcomes, but I hope everyone directly or indirectly involved in this topic is becoming aware (as I am) of the profoundly different approaches to Zen practice between the Rinzai and Soto traditions (as they are being practiced in this country). I can’t help the feeling of worry which is growing within me as I ponder yours and Grace’s comments and continue to read the often contentious posts which seem to be based on the contrast between these two differing approaches. I myself never really contemplated how different the Soto approach was until folks start fighting about it on this blog.

In a nutshell, Rinzai practice is geared towards actively smashing every boundary you hold dear and hoping you survive, free from all constraints. Contrast this with the Soto practice, where the boundaries are (apparently) held stable, leaving it up to the practitioners to step by step, go beyond them at their own pace. So radically different in approach, so similar in outcome.

It seems to me that those designated to participate in any form of investigation into the allegations against Rinzai-ji must deeply question their preconceptions about Rinzai practice in general, and if they find that they do not, or can not understand, accept, and respect the differences in approach, compared to their own practice, then this will constitutes a religious bias on their part and it seems only right that such a person(s) should withdraw from any attempt at mediation in this particular situation.
Thanks again for sharing your insights,
I.H.

Ikkyu writes about his early sexuality in a poem with monks in the temple, along with his choice to be heterosexual. Sorry, I am away from my library now. But you can try: Lust for Enlightenment by John Stevens.

You write a lot about being a scientific authority. I’d like to know more about these scientific studies. It seems to me that Brad’s statements aren’t refuted by your experience with people who have been hurt by relationships with zen teachers. People are hurt by their romantic feelings was what I read in Brad’s statements. To say that it’s worse when zen teachers are involved because of experiences with people in Sexual Abuse Groups or undergoing Post Traumatic Stress Treatment seems like an extremely selective sample. Perhaps there have been a lot of healthy relationships that have come and gone that no one’s ever heard about and it seems a lot worse because we only hear about them when the people involved seek treatment for psychological scarring. Not necessarily advocating for clergy to be in sexual relationships with the congregation, but your reasoning for rejecting it feels based on admittedly extreme cases. Which extreme cases, Brad was pointing out, exist in romances where neither individual has endowed the other with special authority. And again, to reiterate, there’s really no way of knowing how much worse it is when clergy are involved unless all cases which proceeded amicably are included in the study and not just ones where one party left feeling like they had been abused or traumatized.

Not to mention that prohibition creates desire and the idea that one’s desire is perverse due to the prohibition can easily give rise to perverse behavior, so again, advocating that clergy just “don’t go there” because statutes have condemned clergy getting in to sexual relationships might even lead to less of an ability for clergy to have a respectful sexual relationship. Abuses by monks such as the ones in Ikkyu’s time and later being the historical precedent for allowing zen monks to marry in the first place as I understand it.

I get your point and I have spent some time teaching on the difference between two. I know my roles, and suffering was the Buddha’s main business. If suffering comes, we meet the suffering. Is that central enough? Zen teaches that this very life, this very body, this moment this is Buddha. What gets in the way? We meet each moment, meet each person and what s/he brings. there is no other way than to deal with what is.

Bryan, I have posted lots of links and some books before. Try Sex in the Forbidden Zone by Peter Rutter. Sex and the Spiritual Teacher by Scott Edelstein. Also try At Personal Risk. I do agree that prohiibition makes things more desirable. But this matter (sex) is already pretty desirable, and actually, readily available outside of Zen Centers.

When my teacher initiated training for his students preparing them to be teachers in turn, the first meeting was devoted to being fully responsible for one’s own sexuality. He stressed that as being key in preventing unconscious sexual entanglements and remaining present within the student-teacher relationship.

There is little to no explicit training in this area for Zen teachers. I think the community has counted on the Buddhist precepts as the necessary guide. I would lie to see more explicit training on this awareness for both teachers and students.

Links and books aren’t good enough. You need to describe these scientific studies properly. How many studies have been done on the effects of romantic/sexual relationships between zen teachers and students. Or any kind of Buddhist teachers and students? Is the role/actions of a “zen” teacher the same as a “tibetan lama”, would a study of one automatically shed light on the other for example? When were they done? What kind of studies, which methodology? What hypothesis were they testing/evaluating? how large a sample? How rigorous were they? Over what time scale? Can they be refuted, and if so what studies could be done to try this?

Or if you’re generalising to studies about relationships with clergy in general: a) How many of these studies exist, and of what age and quality? and b) How do you demonstrate that the role of “clergy” examined in these studies is or should be the same as that of a Zen teacher.

You can’t randomly select scientific studies that suit you, let alone books. I was trained in molecular biology, and have helped social scientists prepare MA and PhD theses and dissertations. So you can’t pull the wool over my eyes… you’ve not quoted, even in passing, one actual scientific study in all this. And besides, Social Science is notoriously changeable and malleable to current academic/funding trends also, so you always have to be wary of drawing big conclusions from existing data. Science doesn’t say “we’ve done this study, and so we’re right”. Science attempts to thoroughly DISprove its own findings, and only when all avenues have failed at this does it (tentatively) accept the current hypothesis as a working model. You know all this, so why speak with the voice of Science as if it were the absolute and final Word of God?

Hard published evidence please, together with a range of counter-evidence to show you’ve looked at all sides before reaching your current conclusions.

What also seems a little lost in this discussion is the Buddha’s admonition against sexual congress between his vinaya monks and the sangha. Sexual relations constituted a serious offense, which resulted in the monk being disrobed. I’m guessing that the Buddha saw that these relations were destructive.

I understand that Zen is not a vinaya practice. I understand that Zen priests in Japan for a long time do not observe celibacy. However, American Zen has drifted so far from Buddhavacana, and arguably so far from the monastic qualities that Dogen instilled, and is now something quite unusual. The drift has allowed for the blurring of ethical lines. Does it seem curious that Brad Warner, a self claimed Zen ‘monk,” writes a blog for a soft porn site?

I’m not picking on Brad Warner per se, though I think his predilections contribute to his ideas on sexual congress between clergy and sangha members.

Zen in 2012 has some work to do. The ethical drift is pronounced. The lines that were quite visible during Dogen’s tenure have become blurred, even invisible; American Zen seems intent on making its own rules up as it goes along. And that is a very slippery slope to be walking on.

Yes, there is a new custom in the West; men and women practicing together. We need to figure out what is practice, especially between teacher and student. I hope we are working towards that aim together.

I have been following the misfortunes of Zen and its highly public scandals with great sadness. I have great affection for Zen institutions, for formal Zen was very good to me for many years. But when I started taking it seriously a few years ago and going down the priest path, I began to find the system hurting me in ways that were invisible at the time. Fortunately the challenges were not of a sexual nature, and I have moved on such that healing has occurred.

While the public scandals and other publicized acts range from disturbing to appalling, I have come to the conclusion that regulation within the system as it stands can never eliminate them, and likely will not meaningfully curtail them. The problem is not the aberrant behavior of a few misguided teachers, but a system that establishes relationships between teacher and student conducive to bullying and abuse. It is a system that gives absolute authority to the teacher and therefore establishes a lopsided relationship between student and teacher in which it is all too easy for the student to transfer power to the teacher. If the teacher is unfortunate enough to accept it – and in our egocentric, status-driven society, it is sometimes hard not to! – then the path to abuse is already laid. This may manifest as sexual abuse – as in the cases Grace has written about – or financial abuse or other forms of control, but however it manifests, the abuse will be a reinforcement of a power imbalance such that the student – who feels inferior and threatened by power – is both unlikely to talk, and likely to be harmed, potentially greatly. Attempts to regulate the system are well-intentioned but they are, I’m afraid, doomed to failure. The call to action here should surely not be to regulate, but to reform the whole structure of student-teacher relationships, of teacher autonomy, and of institutionalizing a tradition that prides itself on its iconoclastic nature.

I agree, Grace, that strengthening communities is a central concern, perhaps the central concern. What I have been uncovering as my experience clears, though, is that it’s tough to build community when the central pillar of the community is a teacher whose role is sacrosanct and who has de facto ability to excommunicate members. I now know that reality is softer than this and that excommunication really doesn’t matter, but it is certainly the perception in which I was living, and so it was my reality for a considerable while. Again, I would move for reform rather than regulation.

There is a great book on community by Peter Block around which (along with some of my interfaith buddies) we are going to form a reading and discussion group in the new year. It is a different approach to formation of community that has been the center of my own practice for some time now.

At this point anon, (which anon are you) I think I get the message. And I think by using the tone and content I chose, I distracted from the issue at hand. Actually, I believe we both misheard each other and were reactive. And I apologize. Brad tends towards an online persona in hardcore zen and his other books, that is not the same guy who showed up in my blog. But I mistook the Brad in my blog for that persona. My mistake I have found out through those who know him well. Nor do I think every instance of romance between a teacher and student is unethical, but I think it is a mistake to view it as OK. If its OK for a student to date a teacher, then it can slip and slide. If it is considered unethical and something to avoid, we really watch the arising and hopefully, will not keep it a secret just in case it is the one really exceptional love. I have heard of cases of a teacher falling in love with a student, and the Board of Directors was brought in to consult before the teacher began the relationship. It went well for a while, then it went badly for the woman in the end after some years. Then the teacher moved on to the next student. Almost OK, but very painful all around. I think it is very tricky, and I should have just said that.

Regarding the issue of Zen teachers and students dating, you stated to Brad Warner on 11/28/12 that ” I will need to disagree that all cases should not be considered unethical (if not illegal)”.

Here, your response to anon seems to suggest otherwise, and that you now believe that it is a grey area that must be considered on a case by case basis by members of the organization, which is clearly the view held by Brad Warner and his supporters, rather than the falsely-contrived idea by some on this website that Mr. Warner is using his practice as a way to systemically lure women into the sack–a belief that has been refuted by every single commenter on this blog who seems to know Mr. Warner personally, including his students.

If you truly believe what you state above, that the situation is somewhat “tricky” rather than flat-out unethical, will you be addressing this change of tone in a future article? Because your contention–that a consensual romantic relationship between a zen teacher and a student is 100% wrong, 100% of the time, no exceptions–is the very thing that has been debated here.

I did not state that it is 100% wrong. You have my statement above. As I tried to say again, I think all cases should be considered as (potentially) unethical, and it is in that light that we should consider whether to enter. As many have written most of of these situations do not end well for the student, teacher or sangha. So if we begin with this understanding–that all of these relationships are unethical, there will be the rare exception which is discussed and weighed with great care. If this is an “ethical” problem, on what basis can we proceed? But that is where I would like to start. That is the usual “code” for Zen centers. And without that first consideration, many problems can ensue. Some claim they have seen healthy, not unethical pairings. I believe them, and yet I would like to see the caution in place. So, if I discuss this again, it starts from a different position than Mr. Warner, and admits that we are human. But we are vulnerable humans that need to consider that our feelings in this area can trick us.

Those are your words. You said them. You did. Denying them will not make them go away.

Continuing to the stuff at the top:

Brad Warner:

“You are entirely mistaken in the assertion that ALL romantic involvement between a ‘member of clergy’ and a ‘congregant’ is unethical. Or illegal.” (emphasis mine)

Again, the statement he was arguing with was the one that you now deny making. All. 100%.

Your response:

“On what basis do you stress that ‘it is wrong to consider sex between clergy and congregant unethical and/or illegal?'”

This is, as has been pointed out elsewhere on this thread, a misquote–and that’s an exceedingly polite way of putting it. Brad Warner never said that it was wrong to *ever* consider sex between clergy and congregant unethical. He said that it was wrong to consider *all* such conduct unethical. Those are hugely different positions, and continuing to put the former words in his mouth is a clear violation of the fourth precept.

“So, if I discuss this again, it starts from a different position than Mr. Warner, and admits that we are human.”

Brad Warner says we’re not human?

Wow. Just… Wow.

I’d recommend you take a moratorium on saying *anything* about Warner’s beliefs and positions. When you realize you’re in a hole, stop digging.

I can completely agree that a teacher/student relationship should, after it has stabilized, not be kept secret from the sangha. Outside of the pressure that you might bring to bear by saying categorically that all teacher/student relationships are verboten, one should not participate in a relationship that can’t be had to some degree in the open.

However, I heartily disagree that because such relationships CAN be problematic that they should be ended – because it leaves a teacher very isolated. It isn’t worth the safety factor to prohibit Zen teachers from having relationships with people who share this very, very rare proclivity towards waking up. There are many Buddhists, but very few who are truly driven by something beyond their egos to undertake this very dangerous and often lonely task. Most people just aren’t up to it. Let’s not relegate our teachers, to the extent that they actually are qualified, to an existence that bars this bond.

I was asked by Peter Levitt in another thread to present some constructive ideas. I had extensively commetned in another thread, already, and I did in response to Peter as well. But in this context I’d like to offer up an idea I already mentioned in my thread in a discussion with Chris. It concerns justice, or just action, just practices, fair words (I didn’t want to say “just words” 🙂 ). The idea comes out of moral philosophy and is called a “generalization principle”. A colloquial expression of that principle is “what if everybody did that?”. There are however finer statements of this principle, and one of the most acclaimed is American Philosopher John Rawls’ idea of the “Original Position”. His formal statement of it is rather complicated, so I will colloquialize it here. Philosopher’s among you please hold your breath, in other words.

Imagine the following:
You have not entered the world yet. You will enter into the world as on a stage, with all of the worlds problems, social relations etc. But you do not know who you are going to be as a person, nor even a personality. You might end up being Eshu, Grace, Eido-Roshi, Rev. Shari, Adam, Sasaki, Kobatsu Malone, a zen student, a man, a woman, a child, and adult, a young person, and old person. Rawls calls this “the veil of ignorance”. The position behind the “veil of ignorance” is the “original position”. Out of this position you have to come up with a set of principles for an idea of justice, or fairness, etc. which will be best for yourself once you have taken a position in the world(but you do not know who you will be, so you have to be decide for everybody in a sense). It means you have to consider everybody in your formulation of principles and actions. It means everybody is connected by this original position (does this sound slightly Buddhist even? It is connected even to John Nash’s game theory, which some of you might know from the movie “A Beautiful Mind”.).

So, when we decide what to do with sanzen rules, with websites we set up, with institutions, with the words we choose in blogs, it would be wise to consider it from this position.

BTW, just to separate this from my original post, a Buddhist interpretation of the “veil of ignorance”, and thus the “original position”, might be sunyata. And the ensuing effect on our jugements pratityasamutpada.

I think some negotiations are in order. It should be decreed that no Zen teacher should have a sexual relationship with a student, as long as it is also made law that no Zen teacher should be allowed to be a practising psychologist or therapist.

How about just not using your credentials to bully people into accepting your political views as Truth? Zen teachers who are seemingly unaware of projection of ego/authority is pretty disheartening. Meet the new boss as the hippies say.

I think this is really very simple. No special rules for Zen teachers. Setting up special rules for Zen teachers just perpetuates the myth that Zen teachers are special people. They aren’t. They are just people, like everyone else. They should be treated like everyone else.

That means Zen teachers can have sexual relationships with their students, but it also means that we judge them based on the relationship, the same way we would anyone else. If they act like a selfish ass, we judge them as a selfish ass. If they act like an ordinary fellow in love/infatuation, we judge them as such. There’s nothing inherently wrong with such a relationship, unless there’s actually something wrong in the relationship, judged as a relationship, rather than as some special kind of relationship with its own rules.

This also means that groping women is just as gross and immature when a Zen Master does it, as when anyone else does it. You don’t excuse bad behavior just because the guy is a Zen teacher. But you don’t condemn ordinary human behavior just because the guy is a Zen teacher either. Creating a double-standard for Zen teachers just perpetuates the illusion that they are a different class of human being. They aren’t. They are ordinary folks, with no special status that changes they way we judge them. Same with psychologists and preachers and everyone else. All just folks.

If personal, subjective experience is being offered as evidence I feel the need to say that psychologists and psychiatrists have literally and completely ruined my life and destroyed my psyche from a very young age. Brad’s presentation of himself as a human being without magical enlightenment powers and his transparency when dealing with complex and emotionally volatile issues without presenting himself as an expert has helped me more than any pseudoscience backed up by questionable statistics and highly interpretable studies. I think Brad deserves some recognition for speaking directly to those on their way to reassembling the shattered pieces left behind by your profession. If zen, and being a money making lab rat for your confreres has taught me anything, it’s that we know almost nothing. You present yourself as if you know so much, Brad doesn’t.

It’s funny how so many people keep mentioning how Brad is oh-so-great for presenting himself as just an ordinary guy — when that’s obviously not the whole picture.

Brad presents himself as a Buddhist Priest, and has got the sacrosanct Transmission. Under that mythic mantle, it’s easy to pose as “just a regular Joe” — he still gets all the benefits for belonging to the Upper Caste of Zen, and even manages to look all the more “cool” for being “irreverent” and “Ikkyu-like” by criticizing the same System that benefits him.

By being a recognized, “transmittted”, certified member of the Upper Caste of the System, Brad does get a lot of things.

For instance, he gets to pontificate a lot from the Zen pedestal — only his approach is the “real deal” of Zen — only Zazen as he approves of it is real Zazen (“Sitting In Chairs Is Not Zazen”, period), Koan work is delusional, others kinds of Buddhism are not even real Buddhism at all, etc etc… I mean, really, that’s the type of argument we usually get from the Catholic Church.

But that’s not all — he also gets book deals, speaking gigs, workshops, teaching tours, a place in the limelight, etc… All of which he would hardly get without Transmission or Priesthood.

Without the magic and myth of Transmission, without a special place provided to him by the Systems he criticizes (even though he’s also part of it) — THEN he would be “just another guy” — just another anonymous practitioner out there, maybe with a blog.

THEN he would be really “one of us”.

See the difference?

……………………………………………………………………………..

As for “Therapy Zen”, I really abhor it, but transference is a very real thing, and is indeed part of the student-teacher dynamics — even without therapy — even if we don’t like it.

Denying it is just plain ignorant, irresponsible, and frequently leads to abusive situations.

The distinction is that an ordained clergy member is just an ordinary person and that it’s dangerous to treat them otherwise.

To clarify my insane rage against psychology, Ms Schireson uses her profession to establish her authority on the subject, but to me psychology represents locking children in rooms for hours of torture, prescribing medicines that cause adolescents to attempt suicide, fleecing people for years with therapies that don’t work, declaring homosexuality a disease, excising pieces of people’s brains, etc. In other words I don’t believe her position inherently means she knows more on the subject than anyone else because psychology’s claim to empiricism is greatly undermined by its own track record.

I really understand your feelings about psychobabble, and I don’t particularly like the “authority” tone in the article, either.

We don’t need to be psychologists, though, to understand that Zen students do project their fantasies and idealizations onto teachers, and that quite a few guys do take advantage of that (in varying degrees), and have been doing so in the Zen world for a long, long time.

In the better cases, it’s consensual, but there’s also shameless manipulation, and even rape.

This is a much bigger issue than Brad.

You wrote, “The distinction is that an ordained clergy member is just an ordinary person and that it’s dangerous to treat them otherwise.”

Also, real “regular Joes” don’t get internatioanal Zen teaching tours — don’t get speaking gigs and book deals — don’t get to be the guy in the center of attention (including female attention), giving people “answers” and some “real deal” Zen while a lot of people sit around thinking he’s just so cool.

That’s for the Transmitted Ones alone — the Certified Teachers, who can teach you realization as experienced by the Buddha himself 2,500 years ago! I mean, wow!!!

How enticing, how seducing is that?

So you can’t be a member of the Upper Caste of Zen and still meet someone, especially a Zen student of yours, as an equal.

If I were a teacher/priest, I’d just stay clear of that — students would probably be feeling attracted to their *fantasies* about me, not about the real me, anyway — pure transference.

If I really, *really* fell in love with a student — then I’d probably ask her out. But then I could *not* be her teacher anymore. I could be a “fellow traveler” in Zen — but no more than that.

Think about it: If I decided to go on being her teacher, who would be benefiting from this power imbalance?

Her?

Or *me*?

— See what I mean?

I do feel that “illegal” is too much — but I totally think that teachers shouldn’t be dating students. If the teacher really wants to, then let him get down from the pedestal and meet her as the equal, flawed human that he, they and we all are.

In any event, I don’t think this will ever have a good solution until the guru-derived, “transmitted”, mythically-based “Zen Master model” is abandoned.

Thank you for insuring that my blog post in response to Brad Warner calling my opinion “shit” and reasserting the right of Zen teachers to “date” their students is highlighted as one of the most popular blogs on Sweeping Zen .Because of your numerous comments, our exchange will continue to attract a great deal of attention. I am told by Adam Tebbe that the Sweeping Zen software automatically sidebars and highlights such posts by the number of comments as “most popular”. I continue to hold the view that all sexual relationships in he sangha, between teachers and students are inappropriate and unethical. I have cited many books and even laws for clergy on boundary violations, and I have suggested that your teacher/friend/man of no-rank Brad Warner study such materials. I understand that there are segments of the population who believe that they are not interested in social science, and that rules are for other people. It has always been said that a Zen teacher is known by his students and their statements.Your comments on this matter brings this principle to life. Well done.

Grace, I guess I’m confused at this latest comment you made. It seems like the piling on of those who sprang to Brad’s defense has hurt you or upset you…? I’m not sure, but that’s how your recent comment reads.

Of course, anytime people disparages me and my intentions and misrepresents them, I am going to want to defend myself. However, this is exactly why these kinds of ping pong matches (which is in essence what this is) do not help anyone.

You seemed to be taking everything in and reassessing some of your comments previously. Your latest reads like you’ve come back to your original, more combative stance.

Anyway, I understand this has probably been difficult to know how to respond to for everyone involved. I just hope that you know that critics like myself still are well aware that you are trying your best. I do not for a moment think your intentions were bad. Sometimes, when trying to right a wrong, it is possible to create more problems (unfortunately)…and I think that is, sadly, what has happened here.

Yes indeed, my apology and explanation of my mistake and context stands. After all that has been said and done, the comments and belief in righteousness are all that keep fueling this. Good to stop. Certainly a lesson in the harms of righteousness; certainly one that I am getting too. Good to stop and really pay attention to the issues that are bringing up all the heat. And again and again.

Maybe just drop the Brad thing and focus on what you have to communicate about teacher student relations in Zen sanghas? That’s what I’m reding in your comment. Maybe it’s time to write a really excellent three to five page essay that can be used as a resource for building new community structures?

This was for Ben Franklin
Would love to do so, if we can move on, I am ready. Don’t know what more can be done with the BW difficulty. Am working on such a piece now, and it has really lifted my spirits and my appreciation of Brad. Thanks for the support.

Grace, is everyone who thinks your projection of ego and authority is counterproductive a “Brad Warner supporter”? Or just some of us? Is everyone who is disheartened that a reknowned zen teacher has failed such a basic test of self awareness a “brad warner supporter”? Or just some of us? Is it possible to think Brad has issues with aggravated adolescence and think you’ve behaved terribly? It appears you’re very hurt by all of this and I’m sure my comments in this message board have contributed to this gun burst. I”m just a regular practioner and should probably just focus on practice and leave all the church stuff to you deacons. Ironically, you’ve done more to illuminate the process for how we project enlightenment onto zen teachers than Brad Warner has ever done. Just not as skillfully.

It seems that some want to really make something of protecting or righting harm done to Brad by me. I have already acknowledged that both privately and publicly and take responsibility. I agree that we might move on to a more productive discussion, without all the attacks, any old time.

Would love to do so, if we can move on, I am ready. Don’t know what more can be done with the BW difficulty. Am working on such a piece now, and it has really lifted my spirits and my appreciation of Brad.

For Mirror, It was a mirror play. The Japanese expression of kuso and miso is used by Uchiyama to illustrate how much discernment is required. I did not intend to speak of Brad or his behavior as miso or kuso, but to talk about the general process of necessary discernment. It is possible that he took my words as an insult. As some have noted, this word exchange is tricky business. It is hard to read tone or truly get meaning in email. It takes a while to unwind. I hope you too can make positive steps toward supporting a discussion of what matters and how we can share views without demonizing. We all need some help with that, can we help each other?

Every state has age of consent laws. They’re important. I support them.

One the other hand, I don’t believe that they define reality. I do not believe that a couple can, in one day, be transformed from abusive to lovingly consensual. The laws are arbitrary limits.

To take the most notorious example, from all appearances Mary Kay LeTourneau and Vili Fualaau are now a happily married couple. It’s not inconceivable to me that they’ve always had a loving relationship.

But I still think she had to go to jail. She flagrantly violated the arbitrary limit that is the age of consent, and that limit is necessary, because even though it may cause some suffering, it prevents much, much more. I am willing to acknowledge, and accept, the ‘collateral damage’ that such laws create.

During this years presidential race, I found myself having to admit to developing a begrudging respect for Rick Santorum. As much as I disagree with him on the issue, I had to admire his honesty in discussing why he opposes making exceptions for abortion in the case of rape. He was willing to admit that what he was advocating would cause great suffering for many rape victims.

On the other hand, I never found any respect for Todd Akin. Rather than acknowledge the ‘collateral damage’ that his position would lead to, he chose to simply deny that there was a problem, or minimize it (“…that’s really rare.”)

Now you (Grace) have taken what is more or less a “zero tolerance” approach to the subject of teacher-student relationships. That’s quite understandable, given all the circumstances of your life. (It’s not my position; I practice in Zen Master Seung Sahn’s lineage, which has taken more of a “harm reduction” approach, which from all appearances has worked very well.)

What Brad Warner tried to do was to point out that the “collateral damage” that a zero tolerance approach would create. Rather than acknowledge his point, you chose to deny that any such damage could exist; and in doing so, you had to demonize him.

In short, you have acted more like Todd Akin than Rick Santorum, and at this point, I have as little respect for you as for Akin. My mind is open, and this debate is, after all, only a few days old, so I sincerely hope that changes, and soon.

Dear Grace: I am a supporter of Brad Warner. I am also a supporter of you. I think you are both doing the best you can which is why this is so fascinating. You might not understand how amazing this type of war of words is to people. To see the talented and educated go into teeth-baring mode. It is compelling stuff and actually very instructive.

Indeed! Check out Stephen Porges’ “Polyvagal Theory”, which describes three layers of circuitry our nervous system utilizes when dealing with environmental threat. The most recent layer is the human layer which will use speech and facial expression to identify threats. If these modes are not enough to ensure safety, there is a reflex reaction that engages the animal, fight-or-flight, circuit. If these types of actions cannot create safety then the oldest circuits will kick in. We share these in common with our closest reptilian ancestor, the tortoise. The function of the lowest level is to shut the system down entirely. In these pages I can also see the effects of people slipping out of the human into the animal. From personal experience I can express how frustrating this is because the thinking brain is not often able to prevent this shift to animal behavior. I believe that is why we practice. The yogi Krishnamacharya could stop his heart, so perhaps there is hope that we can learn to stay in compassion when the body has a reflex reaction to shift into attack mode.

Oh, I’m sorry. I haven’t express that perspective clearly. If you’re a therapist you may be familiar with the work of trauma researchers Peter Levine and Bessel Van Der Kolk. They have been inspired by the work of Stephen Porges. It’s worth a look! As this new understanding of human physiology and mind/body operation makes its way into our culture through the trauma healing community, I believe it will provide a western scientific support for many Eastern originating philosophies and practices as well as general compassion for ourselves and others when we misbehave and observe misbehavior.

Great, as long as it is not discouraging, I’m in. Thanks for letting me know. Bateson says one needs to get to the next meta-level to solve. Today I read At Personal Risk by Marilyn Peterson and got a big view of the relationship between clergy and congregant. Finally,I understood the issue that folks seem to get stuck on. It is not about the rules, but it is about the relationship! How do we really understand the unequal power and get the boundaries. If clergy, therapists, teachers and doctors take the shamanic and power issues to heart, they will get the boundaries right too. I will write more on this important view and thank you all for enjoying the show! It seems we get stuck, and we can nudge each other to greater clarity. I hope so.

Actually the whole ‘poor women,’ sex is the only issue, thread concerning teachers is myopic and typically American. The other things that teachers have done, much worse things than having consensual relations with another adult, are still being completely ignored. It is not only women who have been hurt and abused by teachers, and no I don’t mean sexually. I know many seem stuck in the attitude that sex and anything to do with it is of the devil but please do move on and at the very least include the other things that have happened. And when are these same Zen teachers who are so publicly wringing their hands about the sex going to do something for the students that have been damaged by teachers such as Genpo? There is an awful lot of talk, no action. And no, writing letters really doesn’t count.

John, would you like to say more about the other abuses? It is an open forum, and I agree that there are financial, brain-washing, deception and creating dependency moves, and I am sure a host of other misconduct. By the way, I do spend some time in my earlier post on what I saw as women’s responsibility for this mess. I don’t see women as victims, I sure wish they could see their part in this puzzle. They can make choices that do not further their practice. They make those choices.
Also, I notice you are concerned about Genpo. Do you have any suggestions about what could be done in that situation?

I tihink it’s wonderful to have a forum where ideas actually get discussed. Some really perceptive insights on this thread, and I applaud Ms. Schiresen for setting the conversation in motion.

I find myself thinking that a Japanese man who went into the boot-camp training of Japanese Zen at the age of 14 (in 1921, would that be?), and has spent his life out of normal society largely in a monastic setting, might never have experienced the kind of loving relationship of equals that has become sexuality in the West. Am I making sense here? Reading about the practice in the winter at Mt. Baldy, I had to feel that the tough old bird is lucky not to have hurt himself more seriously in such a small cage. Why don’t they just post a sign outside the sanzen door, “the Roshi has been found by the state of California to contain vestiges of a belief system belonging to pre-1950’s Japan that compel his aberrant sexual behaviour at close quarters which can be harmful ro your health especially if you think he can share so much as a fart”.

thank you Uchiyama.

Just because there is a law, doesn’t mean that the law is not subject to question, or to change. I’m not saying that the laws regarding therapists aren’t an appropriate response to the empowerment of therapists by our society and the consequences of that societal and state empowerment on the relationship between a therapist and a patient; I’m saying that the empowerment of clergy is only partially by society and only partially state-sanctioned (particularly with regard to marriage, at the moment), and I need to read more about the basis for the laws in other states to form an opinion. If you could site a few brief facts, that would be helpful; the law regarding therapists and the time frame is interesting, as are the rules at some Zen Centers.

I’m not sure. We do as a society empower teachers, in public education; we do empower therapists and doctors, policemen and officers of the military. A minister can be like a therapist in many respects, and I know that’s a difficulty at many Zen Centers, educating members of the public who need a therapist that they are in the wrong place. It’s a little bit different in that our society only empowers ministers in the matter of marriage, really; maybe that’s enough to warrant legislation, I don’t know. I guess the point I’m trying to make is that the state doesn’t empower Zen lineage holders, that’s in the eye of the beholder, and while I applaud the clear stance that Grace and Peter are taking here in the teacher-student relationship and agree that Brad is straddling a fence I’m still unconvinced about the rule. Maybe so, but until we come to an “open-source” understanding of the experience at the heart of zazen there will be more problems than rules can cure; that’s my feeling.

Do you think that’s possible, an open-source understanding that addresses the esoteric as well as the exoteric with no closed fist of the teacher, can we say anything beyond “sit upright and follow the movement of breath” now to those who have arrived for the meditation before the lecture?

Doug, all good points, some of which have been acknowledged and for which I have apologized. Once the sexual relationships happen, that is another matter. That is part of the problem in communication. Now I understand that the work needs to be done around understanding this very important boundary and what can happen when this boundary is crossed. I have no interest in policing the relationships or even judging them once they have begun. I am interested in studying the boundaries that are sometimes blurry and sometimes mixed with projection on both sides. If we can begin to study the harm of crossing those boundaries, that will do. That is where I make my stand of all: All sexual liaisons between teacher and student should be considered unethical–before they have occurred. If the relationship is about to occur, there should be wisdom and compassion within the community to consider this potential relationship and watch the unfolding carefully–before it occurs. I just learned (in the online webinar with Rabbi, Methodist, Catholic and Rev. Dr. Marie Fortune) that according to a survey 35% of Methodist congregants think dating pastor is OK, and 28% of supervising clergy think it is OK. All of the panel members agreed that it is not OK. All the panelists agreed that there is a lot of work to do to educate and explain why it is not OK. Setting rules will not solve this problem.

As far as the laws go, I do not wish to blame states who are behind in other ways to dismiss this important avenue for addressing actual harm that has taken place. Even though I think the boundary of teacher-student relationship should not be crossed, I don’t believe that it always results in harm to the individual. But it may *possibly* always result in harm to the sangha trust and harmony. That said, there are cases between so-called consenting adults which have caused great harm to the student or congregant. The sense of being special, being used, history of sexual abuse or harassment may all be factors that play into this matter. In the cases where harm has occurred, I feel that the professional (priest or teacher) should be held accountable. But I would rather see sanghas educate themselves to prevent this harm as much as possible.

Also, I do not see women as victims. They are sometimes (maybe often) willing and eager participants for their own reasons. Still, I believe that even in these cases a loss may be sustained by the sangha, the woman may be blamed, or she may lose faith in practice, or others may lose trust. She came to practice to see her delusions and awaken, not to act out her delusions about special powers obtained through sex with teacher.

Lots more to discuss. Let’s get out of the blame game and talk about the boundaries and the effect of saying there isn’t one or it is OK to cross without cautions.

Doug, all good points, some of which have been acknowledged and for which I have apologized. Guess what, here and now we have established that Zen teachers are not perfect in their attemps at communication or their actions. Once the sexual relationships happen, that is another matter. That is part of the problem in communication. Now I understand that the work needs to be done around understanding this very important boundary and what can happen when this boundary is crossed. I have no interest in policing the relationships or even judging them once they have begun. I am interested in studying the boundaries that are sometimes blurry and sometimes mixed with projection on both sides. If we can begin to study the harm of crossing those boundaries, that will do. That is where I make my stand of all: All sexual liaisons between teacher and student should be considered unethical–before they have occurred. If the relationship is about to occur, there should be wisdom and compassion within the community to consider this potential relationship and watch the unfolding carefully–before it occurs. I just learned (in the online webinar with Rabbi, Methodist, Catholic and Rev. Dr. Marie Fortune) that according to a survey 35% of Methodist congregants think dating pastor is OK, and 28% of supervising clergy think it is OK. All of the panel members agreed that it is not OK. All the panelists agreed that there is a lot of work to do to educate and explain why it is not OK. Setting rules will not solve this problem.

As far as the laws go, I do not wish to blame states who are behind in other ways to dismiss this important avenue for addressing actual harm that has taken place. Even though I think the boundary of teacher-student relationship should not be crossed, I don’t believe that it always results in harm to the individual. But it may *possibly* always result in harm to the sangha trust and harmony. That said, there are cases between so-called consenting adults which have caused great harm to the student or congregant. The sense of being special, being used, history of sexual abuse or harassment may all be factors that play into this matter. In the cases where harm has occurred, I feel that the professional (priest or teacher) should be held accountable. But I would rather see sanghas educate themselves to prevent this harm as much as possible.

Also, I do not see women as victims. They are sometimes (maybe often) willing and eager participants for their own reasons. Still, I believe that even in these cases a loss may be sustained by the sangha, the woman may be blamed, or she may lose faith in practice, or others may lose trust. She came to practice to see her delusions and awaken, not to act out her delusions about special powers obtained through sex with teacher.

Lots more to discuss. Let’s get out of the blame game and talk about the boundaries and the effect of saying there isn’t one or it is OK to cross without cautions.

I broadly agree with what you’re trying, at root, to communicate about the potential for abuse in “relationships of unequal power”, but I think some of your writing here has done a disservice to your message. Certainly you’ve mischaracterized Brad Warner and his points repeatedly through the course of this, and the steady stream of sarcastic post-script commentary about him and his “supporters” does little except alienate and provoke someone like me (who wants to be reasonable, but came here because I read and enjoy Brad’s writing). You say, for example, that he’s advocating “reasons why indulging your desire is part of Zen” (re: zafrogzen, Dec 8) but that’s entirely a straw-man. His writing, here and elsewhere, consistently conveys the message which is summed up nicely by his first reply that started all this hoopla:

“What I’m trying to say is that whenever something like this happens people are very quick to make sweeping generalizations. And those generalizations can cause a lot of harm. We need to be careful there as well.”

Romantic involvement between teacher and student is fraught with peril; but Brad’s point is that regardless of the merits, it DOES happen, and no rule or bylaw is going to be 100% effective at preventing human beings from getting intimate. When those well-meaning and necessary rules get broken and it comes to light, it’s very easy to go in for a sort of mass hysteria where we *who were not there* condemn and indemnify based on what we imagine must have happened, regardless of whether it was an abusive or not. Even in cases where all the rules about disengagement times are followed and a healthy relationship ensues, this sort of moralizing can be rife. Deep down we get a nice little ego-boost and maybe some feelings of moral superiority, but it hurts those who were involved, it hurts those who know and love them, it causes ripples and currents of suffering that go well beyond the original sin. Isn’t recognizing and disengaging from these sorts of subtle ego-plays at the very heart of zen practice? Shouldn’t more Zen teachers be including that admonition that we “need to be careful there as well” when it comes to discussion about Zen sex scandals?

On a separate note, I don’t think state laws are a good place to look for guidance on morality. To begin with, 13/51 means only a pretty underwhelming minority of states (plus a municipality) have seen fit to say anything on the issue in many hundred years of ever-growing American state law. A cursory look at the website you linked tells me that those states that do so don’t just flatly criminalize sex between clergy and civilian as you imply, but rather they’re very specific about the conditions under which it can be considered abusive and therefore a crime. Furthermore, many of the states you list as condemning clergy-flock relations also criminalized homosexuality until the Supreme Court ruled on the matter in 1986, and many of them would reinstate those laws in a heartbeat if the decision were overturned somehow. Are we to draw similar conclusions about the morality of homosexuality because it was state law? Even more fun: Arkansas (one of your example set) still has verbiage on the books today that gives the guidance that it’s okay for a man to beat his wife, just not more than once a month (though the criminality of doing so is superseded by more recent rules on assault.) In other words, the argument that “it’s wrong because it’s illegal somewhere” doesn’t really hold up to close inspection.

I hope you are well. While the column “About Sweeping Zen” describes the site as an “archive”, which sounds like a fairly passive function for the site, it has developed into something far more active than that, as we all see. It is an open room for “current events” and discussion of same to take place – a sort of nonstop ticker tape of “breaking news”. And, of late, in my view, “breaking” seems one of the primary and accurate descriptors.
I don’t complain about this, much as it has hurt many a heart of late. I don’t mind all or any of us being what we are, including being heart breakers, as long as we are also willing to discern what being this truly is, from root to ultimate expression.

Since the site promotes and allows for the public to ‘be what we are’ at any given impulse or moment, how would you feel about establishing a 24 hour period of silent discernment in order to help each of us to see both what and how we have been over, say, the last week or so, as well as other elements of what we are and may be? After all, we are pretty big, with many attributes. I know you agree. Potentially, then, such an investigation through practice may show us how the nature of our future expression on this site might help the content and tone of the discussion(s) at hand, and, in so doing, serve Zen and human life here in the West, at the very least. I know such service is one of the reasons you established Sweeping Zen in the first place, so, let’s use it proactively on behalf of these worthy goals.

I am respectfully suggesting, then, a 24 hour period for everyone in every thread to

a) not post anything at all, and

b) determine to practice whatever their practice is that will encourage discernment, before

c) posting again at the end of the 24 hour period.

This is not intended in any way to foster suppression of thought or feeling, or to limit expression of any kind. Quite the opposite. As I’m sure almost everyone who has posted here knows, silent discernment is also an expression of who and what we are, but it is only through practicing it that this has a chance to be expressed and made useful to the world.

The suggestion is also not intended to provide a “cooling off period”; for all we know, people may get hotter as they ‘settle the self on the Self” to quote a Zen phrase. Who knows what will happen? But it is a suggestion that since Sweeping Zen and its site manager (you) have developed into an agency of active ‘news breaking and making’, with the clear ability to make choices, and not just function as an ‘archive’, the site and its manager choose to offer the possibility of such a period of silent discernment in the name of its contributors, their aspirations, and its own mission.

How about, then, taking action without wasting a moment’s time by simply announcing that from sundown on Friday night until the same time on Saturday, posting will be disabled and the practice of silent discernment, by any practice means whatsoever, encouraged? A sort of day of rest.

thanks for writing in this thread, too. i provided a reply to your idea re imposing in the other thread where you disagreed with the suggestion of 24 hours for quiet discernment. i posted it in more than one place to see how other people felt. it seems some people like it, and others do not. as i said there, where I provided the reason why no imposition is possible by anyone but Adam, no one who would like to try the suggested experiment can impose anything on those who want to keep talking. it’s simply a suggestion as I believe was clearly stated. but if Adam thinks the suggestion has value, and is in accord with his understanding and vision for this site, he can do that. I imagine he will decide as he sees fit, which is fine with me. I have no need to argue for anything about it. It’s up to Adam entirely. thanks for your views. they’re helpful.

thanks for writing in this thread, too. i provided a reply to your idea re imposing in the other thread where you disagreed with the suggestion of 24 hours for quiet discernment. i posted the suggestion in more than one place precisely to see how other people felt about it. it seems some people think it’s a great idea, and others do not. as i said in the other thread where I provided the reason why no imposition is possible by anyone but Adam, no one who would like to try the suggested experiment can impose anything on those who want to keep talking during the suggested period. it’s simply a suggestion as I believe was clearly stated. but if Adam thinks the suggestion has value, and is in accord with his understanding and vision for this site, he can do that as an expression of his vision and dharma. It’s entirely up to him. I imagine he will decide as he sees fit, which is certainly fine with me. I have no need to argue for anything about it. thanks for your views. they’re helpful and provide insight.

Peter, I honor the intent of your suggestion for a 24 hour “cooling” period, but see a critical problem for my practice. Though I am at times flippant in my remarks, and other times serious, this is a time where I am probably both. Anyway I am not heckling you.

Since I rely upon science to explain the nature of the universe (as a representation of humanity’s mental development), our popular concept of time as a unit of measurement is relatively meaningless. There is, according to some astrophysicists, no such thing as time by itself but only the conjunct of space-time. That is matter does not exist separately from time. There is no such thing as a 24-hour period by itself. There is no such thing as matter for a 24-hour period. There is just the change that matter experiences in a 24 hour period relative the change going on in the rest of the universe.

Now if you want me to believe there is value in waiting 24 hours, you would first have to convince me that the notion itself of 24 hours has any meaning whatsoever, or more meaning, let’s say, than 24 seconds. In fact to search for some external measure of “cooling off” seems to me to limit our practice greatly, when instead each thought occurs in micro seconds, and in fact that time is meaningless except to discuss the changes in our material consciousness.

In other words if we don’t have the mental state now to cope with this, why would we after the earth revolves once on its axis? Shouldn’t we strive for that mental state NOW?

As I read all these articles and comments on sexual abuses in Zen, I simply could not believe that this was actually happening. They were so far away from practice itself that it completely took me by surprise. Here are a bunch of teachers who are now discussing and arguing about whether or not it is permissible for a teacher to have sexual relation with students. The very fact that these, how could I say, needs to be discuss, or are being talk about still astonish me. Not that we should or should not talk about those, but that it has become the most popular topic. The disaster I feel is that we seem to have lost touch with something, and this something is practice. Practice I feel is from within and it is for me a question of life and death. You all know the story of the man who had fallen half road down a cliff holding himself to a very fragile branch, and as he look up sees a tiger waiting and the same as he looks down, another tiger waiting for him to fall down. This is practice; a question of life and death. But the story says something more; as the man realize the complete hopelessness of his situation he sees a cherry just a few inches away, and as he sees the cherry he forget about his situation and attempt to grab the cherry with his mouth. My question is; are we forgetting the hopelessness of our actual situations? Have we all shifted our attention to the cherry?

Why do we practice? I feel that why I practice, that the drive behind my practice is a profound and deep despair, a nagging or dissatisfaction that never quite goes away, my drive isn’t Zen, my drive isn’t even my teacher, and it is certainly not sex, what drives me is truly a question of life and death. What would be left of my practice if a teacher would divert my true and whole hearted questioning? How could a teacher do this? How could he or she do such a thing? As I write those words, a deep sadness invades my whole being. Can we see what really is at stake here? If a teacher cannot see into the most obvious, then how can you call this person a teacher?

I do think that a lot of confusion comes from looking at this ‘problem’ from without, and not enough from within; from practice itself. From without viewpoint; legal, psychological, ethical, historical, scientific, ect, we can almost justify and find arguments for almost anything. A Nobel prize winner in economy once said ‘if you torture the data long enough, they will confess anything you want them to confess’. From within, there are no arguments, no torturing the data on one side or the other, no cherry or cherry picking. How could he or she do such a thing?

Cherry trees aren’t likely to grow on a cliff. The way I heard the story was that it was a wild strawberry, which do like cliffs. Our hero completely enjoys the strawberry in spite of his life and death situation. This is not so unusual, most people manage to do it. In fact ignoring death is apparently no problem for us — until it knocks on our door.

I can sympathize with your urge to practice, and it’s good to find motivation wherever we can — even if it means sitting in graveyards. The challenge for me, as I finally begin to face death myself, is to be like my father, who said shortly before he died at age 92 that he had “made friends with death.” As Susuki Roshi liked to say — we need to “die before we die”

A footnote — My dad faithfully took care of my slowly deteriorating mother until she finally faded away after two years, at which point he said, “Now I can go,” and then died that night.

Practice is truly a question of Life and death! There is simply no spiritual practice without this urge to do something all the while knowing/feeling that we simply cannot do a dam thing about it. Unfortunately death is now an abstraction for most of us until its concreteness one day shows it face. We now see death/practice from without, we must see death/practice from within to see its concreteness, then and only then can we see that dying is practice!

P.S. I do not meditate in graveyard, but in an old funeral home which I have renovated to make it my home. Even after all those years, I can feel this death/dying presence.

Within is without, without is within, but this is, is not the is of equality or identity, it is the is of process, dynamism. The viewpoint is the view. What you look from (within) is what you look at (without). Life and death somehow are two different ways by which to talk about the same ‘thing’. If you see death as unreal, then in some way you will experience your own life as unreal, it will be made of ephemeral, discontinuous points of focus which will be outside of yourself; what you look at.

I tend to see Dying as real, permanently dying to no self or things by which to look from or at. Emptiness is form, form no other then emptiness.

Perhaps another way to look at this whole thing is to investigate our weltanschauung or worldview (viewpoint/view). Birth or past mind, my life or actual sleepy mind, and death or future mind, are kind of seen trough the filter of our linear world of words view, which is basically made of a starting point which we call birth and an end point in an abstracted future which we call death. We tend to see death in the future as this end point, I tend to see death now, not in a imaginary tomorrow. Living and dying are two different ways by which to talk about the same ‘thing’ now.

I like the concept of “View” or mental posture. Right view is the first on the eightfold path and meditation the last — for me the two most essential.

I see enlightenment as “right view” which can only come about intuitively rather than intellectually. It is first on the path because practice “after” enlightenment is where it really starts to happen.

Another famous story from ancient India — Someone walking on a forest path at dusk sees a snake on the path ahead and freezes. Snakes in India can be deadly. However, upon closer examination it is seen to be just a harmless piece of rope. Such is life and death.

At that point life begins to become more real, not less. Then one can start to identify with the Enlightened Mind, as the Lankavatara suggests, until that becomes the overriding “view”.

“Ikkyu explained openly his sexual predilections were due to early sexual abuse by elder monks in the monastery.”

That is out of context – and doesn’t make sense because Ikkyu clearly preferred women.

Ikkyu on the other hand repeatedly stated that his “sexual predilections” couldn’t prevent bringing him joy in later life (he liked to visit brothels, fell in love with a blind singer etc.) and were a sign of his zen freedom.

I have done research in the field of sexual science, and I have personally met e.g. a teacher of a public school who was what you’d probably called “abused” as a minor and what he called having a sexual (illegal) relationship with an adult that he himself agreed upon. By publicly stating (he wrote an article for the German “Humanist Union”) that even in retrospective it had done him no harm, on the contrary helped him to become a loving person, he was immediately dismissed (which is significant in Germany because teachers at public schools are civil servants with a guaranteed pension etc.). Providing another viewpoint was just not tolerable.

Ikkyu provided another viewpoint, too. He understood cause and effect and integrated (sublimed) s.th. probably uncomfortable into a sensuous lifestyle. Let us not overlook what the power of insight can do in zen.

I have many clients who not only enjoy sex, they make lots of money using it to gratify their customers. They are escorts, strippers and dancers. Though none of them practice Zen, they all have a history of childhood sexual abuse. Would you consider their sensuous lifestyles a form of sublimation and transcendence?

Sorry, Patricia, I cannot believe you. It is another myth to tell people that all prostitutes you know have “a history of sexual abuse”. I have known hundreds of them, and although it is true that only a minority is frigid, it is also true that only a minority was abused during childhood. When you speak of “clients”, I can only suppose that you just see those who suffer from abuse and therefore come to you, whether they practice prostitution or not. That is not representative. Of the prostitutes I know not even five percent have ever seen a shrink, social worker etc. If they enjoy sex as their work and get rather rich by it, they are indeed hard to convince of any other kind of work.

A colorful libertine and popular manga and anime folk hero is an acceptable role model for sexual ethics in zen, but Patricia is making a myth about the history of abuse among the sex workers she treats?

Ikkyu Sojun, dharma heir of Kaso Sodon in the Rinzai lineage. Who called him a role model and why would you need one? He is just one example that chan training and a sensual life can go together. There were other famous examples, like the one of Yamamoto Gempo.

A myth is created when you do abstract from a small group of clients that come to you for rather obvious reasons.

the two references to mohammed [saws] and george fox i feel don’t apply to special circumstances and very different cultures.

Mohammed [saws] was head of state and head of government but at home and in the context of homelife [according to the records recorded of his wives and his household] did not and apparently made a special effort one could say not to give orders or use authority over members of the household, but actually was subservient to his wives and household. his first wife was his employer, and he took on the title of ‘profit’ “nebi” at her bequest. it’s really hard to make a comparison. i can’t say i am disagreeing. i can only say it may not make the best case. another better example might be Gandhi.

George Fox and the Society of Friends has no clergy. If you go to a meetiing for worship today however the Society of Friends might be a good example of what you are suggesting, but George Fox’s life style was in no way comparable to a zen community today. which is hierarchical.

quote
“Ikkyu explained openly his sexual predilections were due to early sexual abuse by elder monks in the monastery.”

That is out of context – and doesn’t make sense because Ikkyu clearly preferred women.
endquote

the fact that someone is sexually abused as a child and one’s sexual orientation have no connection. none whatsoever.

one’s sexual orientation is “congenital” not the consequence of abuse. PTSD from serial abuse as a child is a treatable illness. and people who’ve been abused as children can go on to become well adjusted adults who do great service to others.

the anti-science, accusative responses to well established science fact are not exactly defensible. the science regarding the effects of childhood abuse is pretty well established based on continuing research going well back before Freud. within recent decades a consensus has emerged based on research. and the result has been effective therapies.

if you want to throw out the precepts do it without throwing out science and the ethical principles of science practice.

I’m sorry you didn’t reply in any real way to any of my comments, beyond what seemed to be two-line dismissals that didn’t in any way address what I was discussing. I’ve read all the comments and replies, and it leaves me feeling once again sad. Last year I was shocked to discover the abuses in the Zen lineages, so much so that I turned down an official teaching role. This year, I’m shocked at the one-sidedness of the opposite position, the absolute “we’re right and we can back it up with science” kind of attitude. I think what’s really disappointed me has been the lack of any sense, in your own replies and those of others of similar viewpoint, reading around the web, that ordinary human relationships really matter. It’s all about the institutions, the religion, protecting them, stopping any confusions for the sangha, etc. We’re all just typical religious people, aren’t we! …creating a big fairy tale and then setting up institutions which build us up and give us positions of importance, and then we debate what’s right or wrong from the viewpoint of those institutions.

If an adult man and an adult woman wish to start a sexual relationship, then nobody has any ethical right to say it’s “wrong”, that he or she is “abusive”. Drawing parallels with patients and therapists doesn’t work, because in those cases someone is coming along primarily because they’re unwell and vulnerable. Drawing parallels with clergy is more useful – but the same building up of institutions and powers has happened there. The Church is pretty well known over the centuries for moralising about peoples’ sex lives, isn’t it! To say, let’s look at that as an example, is a terrible cop-out, isn’t it? “Let’s look at how one set of institutions well known for being small-minded about sexuality deal with matter of sexuality, and then copy it!”

We need to stop thinking of people getting together as “wrong”. We need to stop thinking about sex as so important either. As one of the people said in these replies – many spiritual teachers have done many worse things than sex, yet sex gets all the attention. Nearly every sexual relationship which ends, ends badly, with one or both partners feeling messed around/abused/taken advantage of/cheated on. I know – let’s ban sex! It’s too dangerous, the world is full of men misusing their power and women falling for men they should, yes? After all, in your replies you’ve spoken so much about female students projecting on to Zen teachers, and said you think the men should find partners outside their sanghas.s. so, what if (as is very likely), women outside the sangha are influenced by the fact the man in a “Zen Teacher”. She can just as easily project on to him! But you don’t sound bothered about those women, only students. Why? After all, at least women in the sangha have a spiritual practice to help make sense of their projection… any other woman could be left unprotected. (Really, all this talk of helpless women needing protection from their own projections is soooo sexist and old fashioned! If I were a woman I’d be terribly insulted by it. Can’t you leave me to make my own mistakes, would be my attitude!) I doubt very much if most women who are “messed up” by getting involved with a zen teacher and later regretting it, are “messed up” any more by this than any other man they get involved with then later regret it. So what’s the deal here? What are you actually saying? What shocked me wasn’t the sex, it was the repeated lying and affairs which many leading teachers had, behind the backs of their wives and families, again and again.

Rather than Zen needing to “own up to being an institution”, as you said, I think we need to go back to real basics. How to help each to be kind to each other, how to help each other to value our lives, how to inspire and motivate each other. And rebuild our institutions around that. Maybe most of what we’re all doing in Buddhism is just a waste of time, simply a kind of social club, with all the politics and dramas of a local sports club or chess league. People like creating these little groups, and then taking them oh so seriously.

I know a lovely Pure Land priest in England, nobody “special”, he married a woman coming along to their sangha, now she’s become a priest too, and they help people in many ways. This isn’t abuse. This was in no way “wrong”. I hope they live happily ever after – but if in a few years time they separate, then that’s ok too.

We need models and examples in our heads and hearts, and in the mini-cultures of our sanghas, where people form and support each other in meaningful relationships. We need a focus in our sanghas on relationship and inter-relationship. Relationships of all kinds. If two people in a sangha become involved in a romantic or sexual relationship, we need stories, teachings, words of wisdom, advice from Elders, which can help them live out that relationship creatively and kindly, whether it lasts a long time or a brief one. It’s a good thing, not a bad thing, if two people who have a human relationship can also have a shared spiritual practice- and I believe we can really build social mandalas which could support that, if enough people tried.

Instead, in Buddhism and in other religions we often have institutional structures that reflect celibate monastism, or puritanical ethics, and we also live very cut off from each others’ sanghas. If a Jewish rabbi wants to find a wife, he doesn’t just need to look at those coming to his synagogue, there is a much wider Jewish community he is part of usually. It’s not like that in Buddhism, is it? Most sanghas are little Buddhist Worlds unto themselves.

But to stay with the Jewish example. Imagine a female rabbi in an area where almost none of the other Jews agreed with female rabbis apart from her own small community. Would it be wrong if she found a loving, supporting husband from among that little community when all the rest of her religion is against her? No!

And once they’re married, of course the woman usually becomes part of the community. My local Unitarian minister is helped out in everything he does by his wife, in many ways she runs the Church! Should she or he be banished and made to go to a different church, because of some kind of over-zealous “conflict of interest”. No! Relationship is GOOD. Relationship is healthy (often!). People are good and healthy most of the time. Just cos they mess up sometimes, it doesn’t mean we should create rules that label most of their relationship-forming activities as “bad”.

You gave away your own bias Grace when you said to me “there are plenty of places to meet singles, but not so many to practice Zen”. What is this “Zen”, that it’s important to be kept apart from falling in love? What is Falling in Love, that is has no place in a Zen community??

Fundamentally, your arguments don’t seem to believe in the power of human relationships for good – in the power of Love, if you like! I’m not being romantic here (though why not!), but just because some things go bad, it doesn’t mean you should ban things as “unethical” and “abusive”.

The Prophet Muhammad was married to disciples, several of them. George Fox, founder of the Quakers, married a student, Margaret Fell – “mother of the Quakers” (and with no church or priest to do it – his attitude was that it’s God who decides who will come together and be married, it’s not for human priests or society to judge!)

So a couple of years on from being disappointed by the abuses (the repeated affairs, the lying, the groping in Dokusan etc.. not the relationships or the consensual sex), I go away feeling equally disappointed by the puritanical and heavily institutionalised responses of those who are fighting them.

We’re just people, damn it. Can’t we have a spirituality which build from that place, and which doesn’t raise institutional religious walls around sexuality which then leads to either secretive abuse or simplistic moralising?

Please can we celebrate genuine human relationships of all kinds when they happen, and wish them well, not wish they hadn’t happened. Life is short, we’ll all be dead soon. If Brad Warner finds true love with someone who also happens to be learning Zen practice from him, then fantastic, Good luck to both of them. They too will soon be dead, why condemn them for finding a little happiness before then?

Zafrogzen. read my other comments. I support the idea of codes of conduct, as long as they are realistic and aimed at helping people rather than upholding some abstract moral standards. Like Grace, you’ve also failed to respond to anything I’ve said. I give up, it’s absolutely hopeless, people are utterly incapable of intelligent debate or any kind of subtley or nuance, which is all that can actually help…. I’ve sat on both sides of this fence, and both sides stink! Goodbye!

And, Zafrgzen, an ethics board is a hopeless and ridiculous idea. For a start, what is “Zen”… which groups would be part of it? How do you police it? What are the sanctions? How do you define a qualified teacher or group? Which country… just America?! (cos you’re all obsessed with American Zen, god bless you all)… or International? Whose version of ethics…

… there is no such thing as a unified zen community, or Buddhist community. So an ethics board is a kind of fantasy! And in practice, big over-arching committees deciding whose in or out, etc… really?? There’s no scope for abuse there, is there…?

Until we find that the ethics board chairman has been sleeping with the wife of one of the other members!

So then – do we have an ethics board for ethics boards?!

Or an ethics board for the ethics board of the ethics board!

People are human, they’re people, and Zen groups are not so important. Channel your energy into something worthwhile like knitting or chess or organic gardening. Strip zen of its self-importance, and then maybe the abuses of power will happen less, and when they do happen will be less important.

Stop trying to control everyone, or wanting power over everyone. Life’s messy. Face it, live with it, do what you can without stinking of holy shit. Because Holy Psycho-Babble Shit is what Grace’s posts smell of, big time, especially the first one that Brad commented on :-)) You Americans like all that Psycho-babble though, don’t you? Covers up for your lack of self-esteem cos you’re all so broken and wounded cos mummy didn’t tuck you up in bed right when you were a baby. Ahh diddumms, so now you want a nice spiritual practice to come make it all better….

Personally I would shove your dummies (sorry, “pacifiers”) up your American ass-holes. And if an adult woman feels she’s been groped inappropriately by a teacher, she can a) tell him to F**ck O*ff… b) Walk away and never come back or c) Report it as abuse to the police. That’s what I don’t get, how easily you Yanks hand over your power to Asiatic looking gurus, and how so many American women speak as if they’re so emotionally fragile and weak, despite years of feminism.

You don’t need an ethics board. You need adult women (and men) to stop handing over their power and behaving like powerless slaves. “Clergy abuse”… over here in Britain, we think of Catholic priests having sex with children when you say that, not grown women dating meditation instructors. You Americans see everything as “abuse”.

Grow up America. Stop importing your “morals” to the rest of the world, stop bombing and killing wherever you feel like it, stop pretending you know about religion or Zen. In my honest opinion, all Americans under the age of 95 should be sent to kindergarten for 3 years in a foreign country, before being allowed to make any further social or political actions in the world!

“American Zen”…. my furry ass!

Chris, from England

ps you still all belong to England anyway, and that’s a lot of taxes you owe us by now…

Did you forget to take your meds? As far as I’ve seen, nobody here is trying to tell you Brits anything about this matter.

I did read all of your comments carefully — and all of the others on all of the threads here. I’m also familiar with the details of most of the more egregious cases of abuse of power by zen teachers. It’s depressing. It’s even more depressing to read diatribes by apologists who attack anyone who suggests some possible ways to prevent future abuse of power. Maybe it is hopeless to try, like you seem to suggest.

I’ve recommended better Board training, including more outside voices on boards. The Board of Directors of a non-profit here in America is responsible for all of the legal and financial affairs of the organization and actually has the power to fire the Roshi if necessary.

I’ve also said that exposing bad behavior to the light of public scrutiny as is done here and in the “archives” might be a deterrent.

I’ve also encouraged the formation of some kind of ethics board that victims (yes they do exist) could resort to for help.

I have a lot more in common with you than you might suspect. I’m not a follower of any teacher or a member of any group, although I have trained with many different zen teachers, including Sasaki. I’m also not turned on by all the paraphernalia such as rituals, robes and such. However, I do love zazen and I’ve practiced it enthusiastically since childhood. I have tremendous respect for the great zen masters of the past and the literature that has come down to us. As a result I have a very high, maybe even unrealistic, standard to which I hold anyone who would present themselves as a zen teacher.

🙂 It takes sounding cross and using angry sounding langauge to actually get a full response from anyone these days, that’s all. Writing politely got me no real engagement with anyone on any of the topics, so I’ve give that up.

I am cross with Grace though for not replying properly, and even being off-hand in her tiny replies to me. Having read her posts, they are too “from on high” and rely on a position of Institutional Authority, both in Zen and Science, without in any way backing up her scientific statements, and she needs to understand the effect this will have on people – and in a way how similar this is to the very arrogance she’s tackling in the male teachers. Instead of using her position to talk people into sex like they did, she’s using her Zen and Academic ‘status’ as a way of seeming “Morally Right”. So she’s part of the problem, not the solution. She’s just as lost in the world of institutional religion as Shimano. Maybe more so. Really, although I was being deliberately flippant about the Brit-US thing, it is true that to us you see everything through a kind of clinical psychology light, you see abuses and neuroses and things that need treating.

Grace’s posts are so ‘superior’ and psychological. She has the arrogance to say that she knows what women are ‘really’ feeling, when they’re “fooling themselves” about who they’re in love with… all the projections they make etc. I’m referring especially to the first post that she made, on which Brad commented. And notice his comment started quite positive : “great stuff” he said, just he tried to ask her to be open to not making ggeneralisations, and then she pounced on him. His use of the word “kuso” was in response to her use of it, not out of the blue.

Grace’s psychological take on women’s minds and women’s relationships may be therapeutically accurate (although psychology and social science are very changeable and open to debate), but it’s not her role to apply her understandings to other women’s lives unless they ask her to. It does seem to us from the outside that in the USA you believe psychologists and become dependent on them too much. Grace may well have spent a lifetime within that world, and be unable to see outside it. Certainly that’s the impression she gives from reading her posts and replies.

So what it all comes down to, is that yes, I think something should be done collectively to explore things like Shimano’s behaviour etc. But when we start saying that there should be state laws against meditation teachers dating a meditation student, then it’s going crazy. Frankly, even your clergy laws seem pointless from the outside, cos who is protecting who against what? That’s why I said “grow up America” – because it seems you all want someone to take care of you in case you’re abused. When, at the same time, legal US interests are leading to the abuse, murder and starvation of women, children and men all over the world right no, this very instant. Grace could put her attention into that instead of this stuff which has got blown out of all proportion.

So, I think Grace and her ilk are massively part of the problem – heavily institutionalised religion wanting to make the institution even stronger, and backing their arguments not with love and logic but with appeals to their qualifications and amorphous “science”.

Incidently, social science is a red herring, whatever Grace likes to think. We can’t determine Buddhist ethics on the current state of social science and psychology. What if psychology says that violence is the healthiest/natural response to certain things … do we throw out the Buddhist teachings of Ahimsa? No, we take Refuge in the Dharma, not social science thank God! But Grace doesn’t, she’s taking Refuge in psycho-babble equally with the Dharma, and it will lead to no good… (recent studies have suggested that the human hand evolved as it did for fighting- so maybe we should all punch each other! Science says so!!)

Buddhist morality is absolutely clear on this – if two people enter into a relationship in which they primarily wish each other well, then it is this ‘intention’/’volition’ which is the determining factor. Grace cannot over-ride this and say that Brad Warner is wrong to date someone because they happen to be in a sangha context. Grace doesn’t understand love or metta or free-will, or even karma. She is a ‘benevolent’ tyrant.

The problem with what Shimano did, and Sasaki to some degree, and others, is NOT that they were dating someone in their sangha, but that their INTENTION/VOLITION wasn’t ”skillful”, they didn’t have kindness towards their student. This is what needs to be explored, and what Grace and her ilk are fudging.

How is it possible for a very experienced Zen teacher to repeatedly relate to students in ways that don’t have their happiness and welfare in mind? And this is where it stops being about sex, and is more general, because the unkindness wasn’t just in sex. What does this say about our sanghas, our teachers, our “transmissions”, ourselves? It raises very very big questions, which Grace’s approach brushes under the table ( because she is part of the institutional problem, just as much.)

People like Grace wanting to stamp heavily on the sex thing are craftily trying to cover the traces of what’s actually caused the fire. The fact that she and lots of us have given years of our life, a big investment, in trainings which when taken to their conclusion in these “top teachers” don’t actually make you much kinder, happier, more creative, or inspired, when compared with members of the public who’ve maybe spent those years time hill-walking, volunteering in Africa, or writing novels.

The sex thing threatens to show that the Buddhist Emperor has no clothes on! Just like, to be frank, the Psychology/Therapy Emperor’s clothes are a lot more skimpy than Grace would like to admit! (but she’s made a living out of therapy, and therapists need to believe in this myth to justify their making lots of money. Here’s a scientific study – it’s been shown that clients in therapy achieve no better outcomes with new trainee therapists than with qualified and experienced ones. So what is all that training, those qualifications, and the money they earn actually doing, other than making them feel and sound self-important??)

Grace is a typical representative of two powerful but highly dubious Hierarchies, two Priesthoods… the Priesthood of the Therapist, and the Priesthood of Religion. She’s very concerned in solidifying this position, getting it strengthened, backed up by law, clearly stated, bringing everyone into the dominion of her world. To use the ideas of Jurgens Habermas, the Germas social scientist – Grace is “colonising our lifeworld”… she is trying to stop people negotiating their own social ways and impose instead external power-based ways of relating to each other. It is profoundly damaging to the human psyche!!

When the truth is, that both these Priesthoods are largely bullsh*t, they’ve manipulated and controlled people for a long time, and still do, and fill their shelves with certificates and titles, and it’s all built on a foundation as solid as a fairy’s wing, (as Scott-Fitzgerald wrote: “the rock of the world is founded securely upon a fairy’s wing”)

Grace is just as much a part of the problem as Shimano, not because she’s abused anyone herself, but because she’s maintaining and strengthening the very power structures and arguments and ideas in people’s heads which lead to the abuses in the first place. In Grace’s New World of Zen, the abuses will still go on, only they’ll be covered up even more, and everyone will be even more frightened to talk about them, because now the stakes are even higher… and women will be even more hurt. Only Grace will be able to wring her hands of it and say “Well I’m not responsible, i set up these rules…”

With Hindu Gurus, sex with students, often sex altogether, was completely banned – yet they still did it, just they swore people to secrecy!

So thanks for replying more than a couple of lines Zafrogzen, at least you showed me more courtesy than Grace did in her tiny replies which didn’t actually listen to what I said.

God help the world of American Zen if Grace Schireson is coming to your rescue!

ps notice she also lies very quickly in some of her replies, pretending she didn’t say things which she clearly did, even though her first replies are right there to read. This is also one of the things the male teachers did a lot too, isn’t it? Change their story and cover their tracks as soon as they feel they need a new version of the truth. I wouldn’t want a Dharma teacher who lies like this, and I wouldn’t want her to be part of handling the fallout from someone else’s problem either. Oh but she won’t see it cos, she’s so dangerously arrogant :((

pps and let me point out to the readers too another thing Grace is doing, which is profoundly wrong. In many of her posts, Grace frames her argument in certain words and phases which sound ‘scientific’ but which are highly emotive words. This does two things – it sets down the pathways the responses are likely to follow – even if someone is disagreeing, they tend to end up doing it through the polarity of for/against the terms Grace has deliberately set up, limiting the debate. Second, the terms, whilst sounding very scientific, are actually very emotive. So for example if we talk about a woman who chooses to sleep with her teacher as an “enabler”… what have we done? Not only have we robbed her of her humanity and confined her within this concept… but more dangerously, by making the term emotive in this way it is much harder for anyone to defend her or argue another angle, because it tacitly then draws them into feeling as if they are “on the side of the abuser”, and nobody wants to feel they are supporting “abuse”. Grace knows all this, she knows how language works. She’s deliberately using her power to limit free exploration and debate, rather than allowing all sides to be heard and have a voice in their own way and in their own language.

This isn’t to say that Grace shouldn’t point out that one person’s behaviour is giving someone else the opportunity to do something, “enabling” it, but there are ways of speaking which keep thought open, and ways which channel it narrowly…

Beware of this when you read arguments by Grace and her ilk – they are not just arguing, they are trying to lead you down ways of thinking and cut off your freedom to think. They are very clever, and are attempting to stop you from being clever (because then you might persuade people to have a different point of view.)

As the Buddha taught, everything in this life is “mixed,” both good and bad. This shouldn’t be an excuse to give up and make no effort to improve things.

There may be no perfect solution to the problem of abuse of power by zen teachers, but without some effort in that direction there’s likely to be no improvement at all. We have to start where we are and work with what we have. It’s idealistic and unrealistic to think we can just tear down a centuries old tradition and start over. I’ve tried, and it doesn’t work without some structure and (regrettably) leaders/teachers.

I’m actually encouraged by the melding of zen with psychology. It might make zen understanding more mainstream and available — and I think psychology could use some help, beyond the current drug solutions.

Thanks, you too. And I agree – although I don’t think we should automatically see buddhism through a psychological lens, we can do a lot of good by developing therapeutic practices from Dharma, and Dharma can learn from psychology too. I was just telling someone about Mind and Life just now actually! Goodnight, I’ll put my polite English voice back on again now, after practicing by brash American one for a couple of days! It was interesting to try it (I’m sorry you all have to stay American though, poor wee things!)

One final thought before I go to bed, since this is all genuinely important. Grace misses this point entirely, I think. We’re speaking of these teachers as if there are two angles- a) the projections of perfect-guru-ness that students make, which is then exploited by them. And b) democratic accountability (though I question seriously that you Yanks have much clue about ‘democracy’).

But take Sasaki Roshi, for example. What if it’s not just projection? What if, projections aside – he’s “got” something, he’s “onto” something. That some people, by being around him, feel connected and imprinted by something that they haven’t managed to find anywhere else in life, and that feels profoundly connected to the very meaning of their existance. What if, deeper than the projections, that’s real… that in a sense, Sasaki Roshi is genuinely special.

What then? If they had chosen to stop him teaching, or sack him, then they would be deciding to no longer be able to connect to what they were sensing in him (yes, maybe they could find it elsewhere, but that’s another discussion). So sacking the Roshi, or stopping him teaching for a year etc (like they suggested for Genpo), is not an option for those people who feel that connection to him. Like saying you should stop being with someone you love!

There are millions of people living in America, billions in the World. If a couple of dozen feel such a strong connection to something they sense in Sasaki Roshi, and want to stick with it even if he’s groping them… well, it’s a tough choice. Ok, they get rid if him and the groping stops. But then this genuinely special thing is lost to them also.

So we have to accept that some forms of teaching, that some forms of spiritual relationship, are intimately bound up with the personality and presence of a teacher. Most people in the world won’t have that or want that… but for some people, it’s really valuable, and maybe more than simple projection.

So there is no solution. Sasaki Roshi is and was who he is. People tried to change him, but failed. But what if that special something really is a special something – what then??

I experienced this with a Sufi teacher first hand, who was in many ways very challenging, and there were some things I questioned ethically too. But without doubt something of importance happened to my spiritual life while I was with him. If he didn’t teach, or if I’d walked away cos he didn’t meet Grace’s criteria etc, then something precious to my life would be lost.

It’s very difficult, isn’t it! Grace’s approach can have no answer to this. In her approach, Sasaki Roshi would have been banned from teaching repeatedly, and everyone warned away from him, and his public reputation destroyed. From a worldly point of view, that might even be good… he kept groping women and persuading women already in relationships to perform sexual acts!!

Yet what if the ‘something special’ really is more important than all that bad stuff…??

What if true spiritual teaching can’t be institutionalised, what if it always relies deeply on the uniqueness of each teacher and each student who is receptive to what that teacher has to offer?

So do we ban true spiritual teaching then, and just live a safe life in samsara?

I don’t know the answer, I wish these old teachers had behaved differently, but they didn’t 🙂

Thank you Chris for clarifying my feelings/thoughts so beautifully. (and this comment is only meant for you..I doubt anyone else could understand) The real harm comes when the leaders force a separation between the teacher and the student…saying they “should stop being with the person you love”. Perhaps Sasaki would not have continued in his sexual misconduct if he had been allowed this freedom.

Dear Chris — Sorry I didn’t see this when you first wrote it. Bravo! You have spoken my mind as well. There must be a way to include loving relationships in our Zen practice, famiies, children, girlfriends, boyfriends. I don’t know how, but sex isn’t bad. And zen teachers falling in love isn’t bad, even with one of their students. What is harmful is lying, cheating, seducing under false pretenses. So, let’s use our practices to help people learn better ways without throwing out our human relationships.

The only reason I’ve needed to on Sweeping Zen is because you reopened the discussion by talking about what was said in private. I have no wish to attempt to discuss anything further with you. I consider you to be encouraging and strengthen an emotive, poorly reasoned discourse between people which will take Buddhism in the West even further away from a position of valuing and including normal human relationships. And to the degree that you succeed you will cause inestimable harm to individual human lives and hearts, and label good people as ‘abusers’ and ‘enablers’. You will give power to puritans and the self-righteous rule-bearers, whilst doing nothing to stop the real secret affairs and abuses which will continue as they always have done. In the name of “religion” you wish to harm basic, decent humanity, and take away people’s liberty and freedom. I wish you the greatest failure in your hopes for this, and I pray deeply that innocent people who fall in love will be able to cherish and value their relationships, and have those relationships cherished and supported by their communities of spiritual practice. I pray that not one sangha labels true love or true relationship as unethical. May friendship and love succeed, and may Adam Tebbe and Grace Schireson fail. May as many people as possible in as many sanghas as possible form loving relationships, and fill our sanghas with families and children and loving couples of all genders and sexual orientations.

As for Sweeping Zen – good luck with it as a career in journalism. It’s a well managed website with a good variety of interesting articles, and visually well presented also. Maybe it doesn’t actually need comments on every posting, because web comments always draw extreme reactions which polarise quickly. Maybe let people read and think, and have a separate discussion room with discussion threads, not immediately viewed on the same page as the original article. That’s just an idea though! Overall, the website is very good and you’ve done a great job setting it up and managing it.

So… Adam Tebbe the campaigner for turning many natural relationships into sin, I wish you nothing but failure, and ultimately I hope you disappear!!

Adam Tebbe the journalist – I hope it all goes very well! Give yourself a break sometimes though, and maybe bring in other people to help. Running things on your own is a lonely task.

I can’t believe there is any debate on this subject what-so-ever! I thought it might be helpful to have a totally pedestrian comment from someone outside this fiercely intellectual crowd. It is a basic fact in and outside of Zen that people are attracted to their teachers, counselors, clergy, doctors etc solely because of their power; it is projection and has NO substance. For a clergy to take advantage of this is simply ego-gratification and a laziness of practice. The term crazy-wisdom is now being used as a free pass to rationalize ANYTHING the ego wants.

It can be hard for men to resist an amorous woman. It should, in no way, be challenging for someone practiced enough to become clergy to maintain boundaries that never allow the interaction to get to such temptation. There is NO harm whatsoever in sparing a student from acting on their projections. It is far easier to see through them if the person in power maintains appropriate boundaries. I know that from having both experiences.

If it is harmful for the clergy to abstain from sleeping with students they simply should not be clergy. If there ever were a genuine impetus for a clergy and student to merge, their respect for their practice and community would dictate that one leave to eliminate the power imbalance and disruption.

Hi Alexandra. There are a lot of things that can be debated here, and it important that they are debated, because otherwise people are simply blinded by demagoguery, power struggles, and dualistic impasses. For example, it is quite debatable whether a zen master is to be considered clergy in the Western sense at all. I know that many who have posted here want it that way. The other issues are simply that Sasaki offered up his life with incredible dedication to teaching zen, holding a full monastery schedule until the age of 105 nearly. He was an incredible teacher, as even many of those reporting on his sex offenses have even confirmed. This is not easy to square with his sex problem.

Chris brought up the comparison with Martin Luther King, which is not a perfect comparison, but is still quite interesting. People freely apply the term sexual predator to King today. And if you read about King, sex, and power, it is not a pretty picture at all by modern standards. The term “sexual predator” is rather new in English and seems to have come up sometime in the 90’s (maybe earlier?), and reflects our modern mores. Those are better values, I hope, but words like predator are also misleading, and above all they are very emotive terms meant to inspire awe and fear (lions and tigers are predators).

If we want to say about Sasaki, that “it is what it is”, the way adam does, then this would only be true as “tathata”. But it is totally misleading if it means “Sasaki is really only an XYZ”, which is, I take it the way Adam means it (correct me if I’m wrong, I do not want to misrepresent Adam ).

Another term which is rather new is “sex addict”. Some time, also in the 90’s, our sometimes not so brilliant psychological profession decided to jump on the “addiction” bandwagon, and suddenly everything could be an addiction. Of course they found a definition for that. But as words tend to be, where they point something out on one end, they cover things up on the other. So it is with “addiction”.

I actually think that the zen master of a temple should _not_ be clergy, rather should be seen as an employed teacher, who can be fired if needed. The oshos and monks should form the clergy, and they need more modern decision and grievance structures than was the case in old Japan. This would help prevent abuses, and would probably even have helped someone like Sasaki give his best, without also giving his worst.

So, you see, there is a lot to be talked about and discussed, and it is not just “intellectual”.

there are many christian sects where the minister is hired and fired by the congregation. and even without credentials. yet they are considered ministers of religion, clergy. on the other hand, elders at a meeting of Friends are simply recognized as seniors [hence elders] and trained Quaker teachers teach in schools. the quran explicity condemns and forbids “clergy” but today’s Islam institutionalizes “experts” and adjudicators called “mufti” who are formally authorized to determine religious fact. Also, the practice of fealty to an “elder” [in various christian sects called pastors elders staretz deacons etc] “rosh'” “sensei” are clerical titles. they wear clerical uniforms. they serve clerical functions. so the idea that they are emplyees like gardeners and housekeepers and bookkeepers is not really apt.

commanding officers, corporate officers, politicians, and clergy are all expected to keep their pants on and the flies zipped and their shirts buttoned and their hands off those they have responsibility for. roshis and senseis are as clerical as it gets.

and the yasutani hakuun teaching that the sword cuts not the wielder of it or the glassman idea that precepts are pretty fictions having nothing to do with your fiduciary or command responsibility and not ever to be allowed to interfere with profit and convenience are just the perversities that saw millions killed tortured exploited and enslaved and denied even the pretense of human dignity, and roshis and senseis treating everyone else as their personal property.

the record is clear: valentine about japanese wartime zen and the individual records of us zen communities publicly acknowledged or not.

if you are going to take on titles and authority and wear the uniform and set up corporate structures to reflect your particular theology than you can’t finagle your way out of the responsibility for it by pretending you don’t mean it.

Alexandra, out of courtesy to your new voice I”ll try to outline the alternative view, before I disappear from this forum.

1) What you say is completely right – IF there is a power difference. Which there is in most Zen centers. But there doesn’t have to be. If new people coming to a new group are not fed the Big Story of the Zen Teacher in the first place, then they don’t look for it and don’t start projecting onto anyone as the Teacher in this power-led way. How do you achieve this? First, don’t have anyone called “The Teacher”, that helps! Second, don’t have anyone, especially not anyone organising the group, as the person who gives all the talks, leads all the practices, tells everyone what they should be learning etc. Then there is no one target person for anyone’s projections to get projected on to. Let the Dharma be the Buddha, as the Buddha himself suggested at the end of his life. This alternative approach works, both in terms of preventing projections happening in the first place, and in terms of people getting on with practice. I’ve personally been involved in creating 2 communities like this – the first, the UK Zen Peacemakers Circle, which I stewarded for 4 years without anyone needing to be a Teacher and without anyone projecting any spiritual power onto me as steward (why would they? I was nobody special, just an organiser) . Next, after being recommended to try setting up a meditation group, for 5 years now I’ve organised a meditation community which has been from day one been kind, friendly, equal, and harmonious, without any projections of power onto anyone- for the very reason that everyone coming along was new to zen, and so had no expectations of meeting a guru figure or dynamic leader! there’s space for leadership and organisational skills within dharma groups without needing a Teacher or Guru figure, or even Clergy. And then most of the problems we’re discussing don’t manifest.

2) Our Dharma communities are mostly cut off from the rest of our relationships and life. We alll might have families, partners, friends, commitments etc – but Dharma and especially Zen tend be cut off and isolated from all this. We don’t involve our families in Zen mostly (there are exceptions), we don’t (as happens in many religions) have children playing in the background while people are doing zazen, We don’t support each other’s relationships in life. We come to Zen groups as temporarily isolated units, sit in silence mostly, listen to talks, maybe have dharma interviews, and then go back into our life again. This absence of ordinary relationships makes the zendo somewhere quite strange and isolating, giving rise to all kinds of strange behaviours. Not least, when a new romantic relationship happens between two people in a sangha, it changes the dynamic for the group suddenly, because it’s so different from what’s usually there. Especially if a teacher is involved! So secrecy often results, sometimes at first to try to’ cause no harm to the sangha’ – but secrecy has its consequences. The way out of this is to make relationship normal in our sanghas – for people’s other relationships – be they romantic, family, children, friendships etc, to be an integral part of our training together in Zen. Not only relationships between sangha members, but also family members outside the sangha. If we viewed coming together in a zendo as a place to discuss our wider relationships, to learn how to support them, to hold lots of ceremonies where they could be celebrated, to have more presence of children not only in one-off “familes events” but in the ordinary day-to-day life of the zendo…. if relationship becomes present ALL the time, then when new relationships begin they will not harm the dynamic of the sangha, because the sangha will be used to enjoying and supporting relationships, and helping people pick up the pieces when they go wrong. Again, I say this too not only as an idea, but as something I’ve actively worked with in our groups for several years, and which really pays off. The idea of seeing relationship as practice was even suggested by the historical Buddha by the way, there’s a lovely sutta where he comes across a man praying to the six directions – and the Buddha suggests he think of his life’s relationships as six directions instead, and pray to the six directions by doing his best in those relationships.

So an alternative is possible. I’ve seen all the abuses, experienced some myself, have had to blow the whistle on a teacher who was abusing a teenager, and have spoken out for years publicly against abuse. And I’ve also actively explored and successsfully found alternative patterns for group practice which avoid many of the pitfalls right from the start, and which – so far – continue to avoid them. I can’t make sure nobody coming along has an affair with anyone else, obviously, but we have successfully avoided power relationships, projections, and successfully included relationship in the life of the community. Another way is possible, I’ve seem in with my own eyes. You can see a blog for the last two years of our group here at: http://www.greatheartsociety.blogspot.com We focus on Buddhist meditation practice, especially shikantaza, and also draw on Rumi quite a lot (the group has historic connections with sufism also.)

Hi Chris — Your experience is very interesting to me. Thanks for this and your other comments here, most of which speak for me as well.

On the “teacherless” meditation group, though, I wonder. For me, over the years, having teachers who have been down the road ahead of me has been very helpful. Also, the tradition and history of the Zen lineages carries a lot of power (in the best sense) for me. I sometimes do feel eyebrow to eyebrow with the old ancestors. I’ve had my projections to deal with, and skillful teachers to help me deal with them. I have not experienced that as a negative, but a positive part of practice — both because the projection itself is inspiring, e.g., “I want to be like that,” and “awakening really is possible,” and because seeing through the projection is a powerful process that helps in seeing the many other projections we make out of self and other.

So, leaderless groups are fine, but probably not my cup of tea. But I’m really interested in experiments with group process and finding ways to open up communications, discuss the dynamics of relationships, including teacher-student relationships, and with bringing our relationships into the open in kind and supportive ways. I definitely agree that cutting our practice off from our families and friends is weird. We provide child care at sesshin for our sangha members, for example, and the children do come into the zendo sometimes. That’s great.

Mainly, I wanted to thank you for adding your perspective here. You have largely spoken my mind.

Looking at the history of zen in Japan, it makes sense that if the samauri started zen in Japan, sex will dominate or encapsulate it as zen leaves Japan for the next expansion. It’s the Dharma of zen in Japan. If you are ignorant enough to use zen to better kill your enemy, then, kama/mara being what it is, the laws of kama or sexuality will encapsulate zen as an unavoidable consequence. Not avoidable, friends. We can fixate or move on to try practicing zen free of it’s encapsulating ignorance. Putting away the swords and the push-up bras is not possible until we go through both. Ok, so now it’s time to start a Mahayana that is free of the classic nasty bits, Kama/Mara, the hungry ghost of ignorance.

Coming from a therapeutic background, it puzzles me that these boundries between teacher and student are even up for discussion. Transference is a very real phenomenon in guided self discovery, and as the guide in this process, the teacher must protect the fragile and nascent state of the student undergoing training. Taking advantage of student transference is unethical as taking advantage of neurotic transference, and me personal experience has shown me that spiritual centers are magnets for men and women who are seeking refuge from sexual confusion and abuse. That being said, there is an equally aggressive counter-movement which uses its suspicion of patriarchy and hegemony as a launching pad for attacks against power structures it views as problematic. This overly psychologized, legalistic and occasionally shrill framing of intimacy is almost as unsavoury as the abuse it purports to unearth and deflect. Zen monasteries are not the equivalent of frat boy locker rooms, and the nature of the zen student relationship is indeed unique. We need to find a mid point ( one that obviously does not allow sexual activity between teachers and students) that still will allow Zen Dharma to flourish in the West.

Mark Oppenheimer and Atlantic Books has just released a Kindle Edition ($2.99) of “Zen Predator of the Upper East Side” all about the life and times of Eido Shimano Roshi. Knowing and appreciating Mark’s work I expect it to be a good read. We shall see.

I finished the book this morning. Overall a good review of Eido’s narcissism and sexual addiction, but most importantly a good analysis of the lack of check and balances that are overall missing in American Zen, especial Rinzai Zen. Also a good look into the problems associated with the Zen Master as guru model of teaching and propagating our tradition.

The book also brought up my own sense of guilt and shame for prompting others (men and women from the Chobo-Ji sangha) to live in a place I where I never lived for more than 10 days. I now see this prompting as a grave error, where most if not all were harmed, dare I say brainwashed, by the dysfunctional guru worshiping organizational atmosphere. I hope the book that I’m writting on this subject will serve as part of my penance for my own culpability in long supporting of this form of practice. Looking back I see how gullible I was to believe that Eido Shimano had evolved and put his sordid past behind him; in hindsight, there was plenty of evidence that his narcissism continued unabated and the rubber stamp mentally of the ZSS board was systemicly corrupt.

Ultimately, each person is responsible for his or her Liberation. Our cravings drag us to such behavior. Proper practice does not include anything but sitting. The subject of this particular conversation has Maximum Wisdom but very little, if any, Compassion. (An example of Maximum Compassion without Wisdom would be most forms of devotional religion.) People flock to extreme example of both extremes as they seem to present exits from samsara. These exits are only superficial and temporary and do not ultimately lead to Liberation.

The true master is one with Wisdom and Compassion. Instead of providing an exit, they provide a transparency to the truth of Life so the student can accomplish his or her Liberation, which results in the proper balance of Wisdom and Compassion.

In a perfect world, these imbalanced teachers would be isolated from students until they learned or gained the balancing factor. In our world, each of us must be vigilant in our practice. If one is not a teacher, one needs to stop looking outward, only inward in practice. As far as one is able (thinking that most of us have responsibilities such as families, jobs, etc.), one needs to weed out from our lives activities that interfere with our practice.

research? scientific data? hahahaha. the delusion is so deep on this website i need hip boots to wade through it. i started zen practice in 1976 and still continue today… with many teachers in many places including china. i’ve never been to a zen center that was not 100% voluntary. any time anyone wishes they can simply leave.

not long ago, i had a similar “debate” with a certain “zen teacher” on this website who kept pushing his puritanical viewpoint of zen and buddhism. talking about how other teachers had “transgressed.” very similar to this nonsense. several years later, it was revealed that he had an affair with one of his students. more and more the zen community looks much like the hypocritical “christian” community. meanwhile many of you selectively adhere to the precepts that serve your personal agendas.

remember this? do not speak of others faults and errors. perhaps some of you might want to become familiar with ALL of the precepts. they were articulated by an enlightened teacher. not a bunch of moralizing crusaders.

but, by all means, keep on wagging your tongues like a bunch of prudish schoolmarms. just like the buddha would have done, right? hahahahaha. much of what passes for zen practice these days is actually a massive psychological ego trip. but no matter… karma is law of cause and effect. what goes around comes around.

At the risk of touching off a cascade of buzzword-laced remonstrations, I’d like to share a few observations.

1. Sex is not the worst thing that can happen to you. It has no mystical powers or ritual onus. It’s normal human behaviour, even when it happens in situations that displease us. (I’m old enough to remember when a forum like this would have been full of “Teacher X is a homosexual!!!”, with adamant calls for justice. Those gatekeepers were as condescending to their critics as these. It was universally received, uncontestable wisdom. And also utterly wrong. Are we capable of learning, folks?)

2. Most sex is not abuse.

3. Not all abuse is sex. (Though in Western Zen, we strictly never entertain accusations of any other kind. I was abused by my teacher, as were most of my fellow students. None of it was sexual, and I would be truly astonished if such an allegation came to light. It still damaged us all deeply. But it doesn’t count because, you know… no sex.)

4. The concept of “Zen teachers” is ultimately the problem here. Bust ’em back to sangha, where the Buddha put them in the first place, and the problem evaporates. No authority, no abuse.

Brad has injected some badly-needed common sense into the conversation, and I support all of the statements that are quoted in this article. As a man who has devoted his life to Zen, I am shamed, outraged, and just plain exhausted by the interminable lynchings in our community.

For the record I also suffer from PTSD. I can’t speak for every fellow sufferer, but running about shouting “sexual misconduct!” at the drop of a hat doesn’t serve my interests. We tend to value calm, reason, and forgiveness of human frailty a great deal more than the general population. I have a visceral involuntary response (the infamous “trigger”) to the whole villagers-with-torches thing.

People are complex. Love is uncontrollable, and that’s its value. Grown-ups hold the keys to their own lives. Many people fall into romantic relationships that aren’t good for them; many leave feeling used or regretful. Sit down with me some time and I’ll regale you with my own lurid tales of heartbreak, bad judgement, and damage. (Spoiler alert: in the end, I put down romantic love entirely and take refuge in the Three Treasures.)

This business of sex —> victimhood —> shaming is well-rooted in this society. We don’t require any leadership in that domain from Zen. If this is all we’re bringing to the table, we should sell off our office equipment and go back to the Church.

As for me, I’ll just go back to the woods. There’s nothing but practice out there.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Name *

Email *

Website

CAPTCHA Code*

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

About Myoan Grace Schireson

Myōan Grace Schireson is head teacher and Abbess of the Central Valley Zen Foundation She received dharma transmission in the Suzuki Roshi lineage by Sojun Mel Weitsman, Abbot of Berkeley Zen Center. Grace has also studied Rinzai Zen in Japan with Keido Fukushima Roshi, the late Abbot of Tofukuji Monastery in Kyoto, Japan who asked her to teach the koans she had studied with him during her training there. Grace is the head teacher of the Central Valley Zen Foundation and has founded and leads three Zen groups and a Zen retreat center in California. Grace is also a clinical psychologist who has specialized in women and families. She has been married for forty-eight years to her husband, Kuzan Peter Schireson, and has two grown sons and four grandchildren.

About Sweeping Zen

Established in 2009 as a grassroots initiative, Sweeping Zen is a digital archive of information on Zen Buddhism. Featuring in-depth interviews, an extensive database of biographies, news, articles, podcasts, teacher blogs, events, directories and more, this site is dedicated to offering the public a range of views in the sphere of Zen Buddhist thought. We are also endeavoring to continue creating lineage charts for all Western Zen lines, doing our own small part in advancing historical documentation on this fabulous import of an ancient tradition. Come on in with a tea or coffee. You're always bound to find something new.

Sweeping Zen is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com.